From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing

Abstract

Research documents the experiences of depression and anxiety evoked by climate change, but little attention has been given to frustration and anger, or to untangling the effects of different emotional responses to the climate crisis on human and planetary health. Our Australian national survey data shows that experiencing eco-anger predicted better mental health outcomes, as well as greater engagement in pro-climate activism and personal behaviours. Eco-anxiety and eco-depression were less adaptive, relating to lower wellbeing. Interestingly, those feeling eco-depressed were more likely to report participating in collective climate action, while those feeling eco-anxious were less likely to join the cause. Our findings implicate anger as a key adaptive emotional driver of engagement with the climate crisis, and prompt warnings about the mental health of populations increasingly worried and miserable about climate change.

Full text

The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
1
(2021)
100003
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
j
o
ur
nal
homepa
ge:
www.elsevier.com
From
anger
to
action:
Differential
impacts
of
eco-anxiety,
eco-depression,
and
eco-anger
on
climate
action
and
wellbeing
Samantha
K.
Stanleya,∗,
Teaghan
L.
Hoggb,
Zoe
Levistona,c,
Iain
Walkera
aResearch
School
of
Psychology,
Australian
National
University,
Australia
bCentre
for
Applied
Psychology,
University
of
Canberra,
Australia
cSchool
of
Arts
and
Humanities,
Edith
Cowan
University,
Australia
i
n
f
o
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
Historique
de
l’article
:
Rec¸
u
le
21
d´
ecembre
2020
Accepté
le
13
janvier
2021
A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Research
documents
the
experiences
of
depression
and
anxiety
evoked
by
climate
change,
but
little
atten-
tion
has
been
given
to
frustration
and
anger,
or
to
untangling
the
effects
of
different
emotional
responses
to
the
climate
crisis
on
human
and
planetary
health.
Using
Australian
national
survey
data,
we
found
that
experiencing
eco-anger
predicted
better
mental
health
outcomes,
as
well
as
greater
engagement
in
pro-climate
activism
and
personal
behaviours.
Eco-anxiety
and
eco-depression
were
less
adaptive,
relating
to
lower
wellbeing.
Interestingly,
those
feeling
eco-depressed
were
more
likely
to
report
parti-
cipating
in
collective
climate
action,
while
those
feeling
eco-anxious
were
less
likely
to
join
the
cause.
Our
findings
implicate
anger
as
a
key
adaptive
emotional
driver
of
engagement
with
the
climate
crisis,
and
prompt
warnings
about
the
mental
health
of
populations
increasingly
worried
and
miserable
about
climate
change.
©
2021
L’Auteur(s).
Publi ´
e
par
Elsevier
Masson
SAS.
Cet
article
est
publi ´
e
en
Open
Access
sous
licence
CC
BY-NC-ND
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.
Introduction
Climate
change
is
one
of
the
greatest
contemporary
threats
to
human
and
planetary
health.
Maibach
and
colleagues
[1]
argue
that
a
“stable
climate
is
the
most
fundamental
determinant
of
human
health”.
Climate
change
affects
mental
health
by
triggering
emo-
tional
distress
[2],
with
some
individuals
deeply
affected
by
grief,
loss,
and
frustration
[3].
Various
new
terms
to
capture
the
emo-
tional
responses
to
the
climate
crisis
include
‘eco-anxiety’
(anxiety
experienced
in
response
to
the
ecological
crisis
[4])
and
‘solastalgia’
(distress
caused
by
the
painful
‘lived
experience’
of
environmental
destruction
[5]).
Studies
on
these
and
other
emotional
responses
are
becoming
more
common
[6,7];
however,
it
is
unclear
how
the
emotions
evoked
by
the
climate
crisis
relate
to
mental
health
out-
comes,
and
whether
and
how
these
responses
relate
to
action
to
address
climate
change.
An
obvious
distinction
between
the
types
of
emotions
we
expe-
rience
is
between
positive
or
negative
emotions
(i.e.,
feeling
good
versus
feeling
bad).
Previous
research
tends
to
compare
the
effects
∗Corresponding
author
at:
Research
School
of
Psychology,
Australian
National
University,
Canberra,
2601,
Australia.
Adresses
e-mail
:
samantha.stanley@anu.edu.au
(S.K.
Stanley),
teaghan.hogg@canberra.edu.au
(T.L.
Hogg),
zoe.leviston@anu.edu.au
(Z.
Leviston),
iain.walker@anu.edu.au
(I.
Walker).
of
feeling
positive
or
negative
emotions,
without
differentiating
between
different
kinds
of
positive
and
negative
emotions,
mea-
ning
anger,
anxiety,
and
depression
are
considered
together.
How
pleasant
an
emotion
is
forms
one
dimension
of
affect.
The
other
is
‘activation’:
how
much
an
emotion
energises
or
inhibits
action
[8].
While
all
negative
emotions
are
unpleasant,
their
degree
of
activa-
tion
differs.
This
is
important,
because
less
activating
emotions
lead
to
disengagement
from
a
perceived
threat,
while
more
activating
emotions
predict
behavioural
attempts
to
lessen
the
threat,
either
by
approaching
or
avoiding
the
situation
(i.e.,
by
fight
or
by
flight).
Depression
is
a
deactivating
emotion,
unlikely
to
motivate
action.
In
contrast,
anxiety
is
an
activating
emotion
provoking
avoi-
dance
of
threat
(i.e.,
flight),
and
anger
is
activating
and
associated
with
an
approach
tendency
(i.e.,
fight
[9]).
Without
looking
at
the
separate
effects
of
discrete
negative
emotions,
researchers
overlook
varied
impacts
on
behaviour.
In
the
workplace,
experiencing
anger,
fear,
or
sadness
in
response
to
a
troubling
situation
predicts
dif-
ferent
outcomes:
respectively,
voicing
one’s
discontent,
exiting
the
negative
situation,
or
neglecting
the
situation
such
that
it
does
not
improve
[10].
Because
anxiety
is
often
experienced
at
the
same
time
as
anger,
and
anxiety
inhibits
action,
ignoring
their
co-occurrence
masks
the
strong
positive
association
between
anger
and
collective
action
[11].
In
the
context
of
eco-emotions
and
climate
change,
eco-
depression
should
inhibit
climate
action,
eco-anxiety
should
motivate
active
avoidance,
and
eco-anger
should
promote
climate
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003
2667-2782/©
2021
The
Author(s).
Published
by
Elsevier
Masson
SAS.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY-NC-ND
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).

S.K.
Stanley,
T.L.
Hogg,
Z.
Leviston
et
al.
The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
1
(2021)
100003
action.
While
no
research
to
date
has
examined
the
association
between
eco-anger
specifically
and
pro-environmental
behaviour,
there
is
(conflicting)
evidence
about
anger
relating
to
pro-climate
policy
support
[12,13].
Nevertheless,
theoretical
grounding
from
social
psychology
suggests
that
eco-anger
may
encourage
engage-
ment
with
solutions
to
climate
change
that
is
distinct
from
other
negative
eco-emotions.
The
predicted
effects
of
different
negative
eco-emotions
on
action
to
preserve
planetary
health
are
clear;
those
with
mental
health
are
less
so.
Climate
change
has
a
debilitating
psychological
toll
[3],
previously
identified
as
a
form
of
grief
[5]
or
anxiety
[6].
Despite
this,
and
despite
the
dearth
of
evidence
to
inform
health
professionals
and
researchers
about
how
eco-emotions
relate
to
mental
health,
communicators
continue
to
use
climate
change
mes-
sages
that
elicit
strong
emotional
reactions.
Although
we
know
that
fear-based
campaigns
have
mixed
effects
on
behaviour
at
best
[14,15],
the
effects
of
chronic
eco-emotional
experiences
on
human
health
are
unknown.
2.
Current
study
We
first
aim
to
confirm
that
our
measures
of
eco-anxiety,
eco-
depression,
and
eco-anger
capture
distinct
emotional
responses
to
climate
change.
We
then
examine
how
negative
eco-emotions
uni-
quely
contribute
to
individuals’
wellbeing
and
engagement
with
climate
change
solutions.
We
use
structural
equation
modelling
to
identify
the
associations
each
eco-emotion
has
with
wellbeing
and
pro-climate
behaviour,
while
simultaneously
controlling
for
the
other
negative
eco-emotions.
We
expect
eco-anxiety
and
eco-
depression
to
be
associated
with
poorer
mental
health
outcomes
[16].
In
the
absence
of
previous
research
on
this
topic,
we
do
not
make
a
directional
prediction
about
the
way
eco-anger
relates
to
mental
health.
Anger
predicts
collective
action
in
social
psycho-
logy
research
[17,18],
therefore
we
expect
eco-anger
to
relate
more
strongly
to
collective
action
on
climate
change
(such
as
protest,
signing
a
petition)
than
to
personal
behaviour
(such
as
recycling,
energy
conservation).
Meanwhile,
we
note
the
potential
for
anxious
or
depressed
emotional
responses
to
be
unrelated
to
action
[6]
or
even
to
predict
disengagement
[11].
3.
Method
3.1.
Participants
and
procedure
We
used
a
subset
of
the
data
from
a
larger
(approximately
25-minutes)
online
survey
of
individuals
living
across
every
state
and
territory
of
Australia,
nationally
representative
on
age,
gen-
der,
and
location
using
quotas
based
on
census
data.
Participants
were
recruited
by
Qualtrics
between
20
August
and
20
Septem-
ber
2020,
receiving
individual
compensation
in
exchange
for
their
participation.
The
Australian
National
University
Human
Research
Ethics
Committee
approved
our
ethics
protocol
(approval
number
2020/429),
and
participants
provided
consent
by
continuing
on
to
the
study
after
reading
an
onscreen
information
sheet.
We
analysed
data
from
only
those
participants
who
selected
“I
think
that
climate
change
is
happening,
and
I
think
that
humans
are
largely
causing
it”
when
asked
what
best
describes
their
thoughts
about
climate
change
(61.0
%
of
the
full
sample).
Those
who
were
unsure
or
denied
climate
change
is
happening
or
human-caused
were
excluded
because
the
cause
of
climate
deniers’
experience
of
the
same
emotions
likely
differs
from
those
accepting
anthropoge-
nic
climate
change.
For
example,
deniers
may
feel
frustrated
about
climate
change
because
they
do
not
believe
it
exists,
while
accep-
ters
may
feel
frustration
at
climate
inaction,
which
is
more
relevant
to
their
pro-climate
behaviours
[19].
The
gender
distribution
of
our
full
sample
(i.e.,
prior
to
removing
deniers)
matched
the
Australian
population
at
the
2016
census
[20]
(50.9
%
versus
50.7
%
female).
Participant
recruitment
ensured
that
our
sample
approximated
the
same
proportion
of
participants
in
each
age
band
reported
in
the
Australian
census,
making
our
final
median
participant
age
46.0
years.
Participants
in
the
subsample
used
for
this
particular
study
skewed
female
(44.2
%
male,
55.5
%
female,
0.3
%
other
or
prefer
not
to
say)
and
were
on
average
44.08
years
old
(SD
=
17.46
years;
median
41.0).
These
deviations
from
the
full
sample,
and
therefore
Australian
population,
are
consistent
with
literature
suggesting
males
and
older
people
are
slightly
more
likely
to
deny
climate
change
than
females
and
younger
people
[21].
Post
hoc
power
analysis
using
semPower
[22]
confirmed
sample
size
was
sufficiently
powered
after
limiting
the
sample
by
exclu-
ding
climate
deniers
(see
Supplementary
Materials
for
details).
3.2.
Measures
See
the
Supplementary
Materials
for
exact
wording
of
our
sur-
vey
items.
3.2.1.
Eco-emotions
Participants
rated
the
extent
climate
change
makes
them
feel
eco-depressed
(depressed,
miserable),
eco-anxious
(anxious,
afraid)
and
eco-angry
(angry,
frustrated)
on
sliding
scales
from
0
(not
at
all
this
way)
to
100
(a
great
deal).
Participants
were
also
asked
which
emotion
they
experience
most
often
in
relation
to
climate
change.
3.2.2.
Mental
health
outcomes
We
used
the
DASS-21
[23]
to
index
experiences
of
depression,
anxiety,
and
stress,
with
seven
items
per
construct.
Participants
rated
the
extent
each
statement
applied
to
them
over
the
past
week
from
0
(did
not
apply
to
me
at
all)
to
3
(applied
to
me
very
much,
or
most
of
the
time).
3.2.3.
Pro-climate
behaviours
Participants
were
asked
how
often
in
the
last
year
they
engaged
in
a
series
of
behaviours
from
0
(never)
to
100
(at
every
oppor-
tunity).
We
analysed
data
from
eight
items
asking
about
personal
behaviours
(e.g.,
recycling/composting),
and
eight
collective
action
behaviours
(e.g.,
protesting).
4.
Results
Data
and
syntax
are
available
on
the
OSF:
https://osf.io/bdwqs/.
4.1.
Experiences
of
eco-emotions
and
correlates
The
means
in
Table
1
show
that
climate
accepters
experience
eco-anger
and
eco-anxiety
at
similar
levels,
while
eco-depression
is
experienced
less
frequently.
Interestingly,
when
asked
which
emotion
they
most
commonly
experienced
in
relation
to
climate
change,
the
most
frequent
response
was
frustration,
a
component
of
eco-anger
(26.7
%
of
responses).
Total
scores
on
the
DASS
subscales
tell
us
that
over
the
past
week,
our
sample
experien-
ced
‘normal’
levels
of
anxiety
and
stress,
however
the
severity
of
depression
approaches
‘mild’.
Mean
behavioural
engagement
levels
indicate
that
participants
perform
personal
behaviours
most
of
the
time;
performing
collective
action
behaviours
is
relatively
rare.
Table
1
also
presents
correlations,
which
show
that
greater
eco-anxiety,
eco-depression,
and
eco-anger
each
similarly
relate
to
increased
severity
of
the
experience
of
depression,
anxiety,
and
stress.
All
eco-emotions
also
predict
an
increase
in
personal
and
collective
pro-climate
behaviours.
However,
experiences
of
each
2

S.K.
Stanley,
T.L.
Hogg,
Z.
Leviston
et
al.
The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
1
(2021)
100003
Table
1
Associations
between
eco-emotions
and
correlates.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
Eco-depression
rSB =
.82
2.
Eco-anxiety .74***
rSB =.83
3.
Eco-anger
.68***
.73***
rSB =
.84
4.
Personal
behaviours
.23***
.24***
.30***
␣
=
.84
5.
Collective
action
.39***
.38***
.44***
.40***
␣
=
.89
6.
Depression
.34***
.28***
.19***
−.02
.16***
␣
=
.94
7.
Anxiety
.31***
.30***
.17***
.02
.25***
.71***
␣
=
.88
8.
Stress .33***
.33***
.22***
−.04 .20***
.79***
.81***
␣
=
.91
Mean
(standard
deviation) 37.75
(28.01)
50.34
(28.46)
55.28
(29.05)
65.75
(18.81)
25.81
(23.76)
4.95
(5.41)
3.33
(4.26)
5.24
(4.96)
Scale
range
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-21
0-21
0-21
Note.
***p
<
.001,
**p
<
.01,
*p
<
.05.
Reliability
analyses
are
reported
in
the
diagonal;
Cronbach’s
alpha
(␣)
for
scales
with
3
or
more
items,
Spearman-Browne
coefficient
(rSB)
for
2-item
scales.
Fig.
1.
Standardised
paths
from
a
structural
equation
model
predicting
mental
health
outcomes
from
eco-emotions.
Note.
***p
<
.001, nsp
>
.05,
N
=
3,063,
␹2(309)
=
3428.11,
Comparative
Fit
Index
(CFI)
=
.95,
Tucker
Lewis
Index
(TLI)
=
.94,
Root
Mean
Square
Error
of
Approximation
(RMSEA)
=
.06
(95
%
CI
[.06,
.06]),
Standardized
Root
Mean
Square
Residual
(SRMR)
=
.03.
emotion
are
also
strongly
positively
related
(i.e.,
the
more
one
experiences
any
of
these
negative
emotions
in
relation
to
climate
change,
the
more
they
experience
the
other
emotions).
We
ran
a
series
of
structural
equation
models
to
disentangle
these
effects.
4.2.
Assessing
the
dimensionality
of
eco-emotions
and
behaviour
We
used
confirmatory
factor
analysis
(CFA)
using
Lavaan
[24]
in
R
to
compare
models
treating
the
negative
emotional
responses
as
a
single
dimension
versus
three
latent
constructs.
These
analyses
(N
=
3,075)
confirmed
the
emotional
experiences
were
distinct,
as
the
three-dimensional
model
fit
better
(␹2(6)
=
53.52,
CFI
=
1.00,
TLI
=
.99,
RMSEA
=
.05
(95
%
CI
[.04,
.06]),
SRMR
=
.01)
than
the
one-
dimensional
model
(␹2(9)
=
602.26,
CFI
=
.95,
TLI
=
.92,
RMSEA
=
.15
(95
%
CI
[.14,
.16]),
SRMR
=
.04;
␹2(3)
=
548.74,
p
<
.001).
The
same
process
confirmed
that
a
model
separating
personal
and
collective
behaviours
provided
relatively
better
fit
to
the
data
(N
=
2,469,
␹2(103)
=
2436.90,
CFI
=
.87,
TLI
=
.85,
RMSEA
=
.10
(95
%
CI
[.09,
.10]),
SRMR
=
.08)
than
a
one-dimensional
model
(␹2(104)
=
6806.12,
CFI
=
.63,
TLI
=
.58,
RMSEA
=
.16
(95
%
CI
[.16,
.17]),
SRMR
=
.14;
␹2(1)
=
4369.22,
p
<
.001).
Model
fit
was
improved
to
an
acceptable
level
by
correlating
two
related
items
(“Joined
a
protest
march”,
and
“Written
a
letter
to
a
member
of
parliament”;
␹2(102)
=
1921.36,
CFI
=
.90,
TLI
=
.88,
RMSEA
=
.09
(95
%
CI
[.08,
.09]),
SRMR
=
.07).
Factor
loadings
for
both
CFAs
are
presented
in
the
Supplementary
Materials.
4.3.
Mental
health
correlates
of
eco-emotions
Using
structural
equation
modelling
(SEM)
in
R
[24],
we
examined
the
unique
relationships
between
eco-emotions
and
experiences
of
depression,
anxiety,
and
stress
in
participants’
daily
lives.
SEM
estimates
associations
between
the
eco-emotions
(as
‘latent
variables’;
measured
using
two
items
each
as
per
our
mea-
surement
models
above)
and
mental
health
outcomes
(measured
with
seven
items
each).
Importantly,
the
associations
in
SEMs
represent
how
strongly
each
eco-emotion
on
the
left
in
Fig.
1
pre-
dicts
each
mental
health
outcome
on
the
right,
independent
of
each
other
eco-emotion
in
the
model,
so
they
tell
us
how
eco-anger
relates
to
mental
health
while
controlling
for
the
experiences
of
eco-depression
and
eco-anxiety.
As
shown
in
Fig.
1,
eco-depression
predicted
greater
depres-
sion
(strong
effect),
as
well
as
anxiety
and
stress
symptomology
(moderate
effects).
The
more
eco-anxious
individuals
felt,
the
more
they
reported
experiencing
anxiety
and
stress
in
their
daily
lives
(moderate
effects),
with
no
association
with
depression.
These
associations
suggest
that
eco-depression
and
eco-anxiety
may
contribute
to,
or
at
least
co-occur
with,
poorer
mental
health.
Meanwhile,
eco-anger
may
be
a
uniquely
adaptive
response
to
the
climate
crisis,
as
it
related
to
lower
anxiety,
depression,
and
stress
(moderate
effects).
3

S.K.
Stanley,
T.L.
Hogg,
Z.
Leviston
et
al.
The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
1
(2021)
100003
Fig.
2.
Standardised
paths
from
a
structural
equation
model
predicting
pro-climate
behaviours
from
climate-related
emotions.
Note.
***p
<
.001,
**p
<
.01,
*p
<
.05, nsp
>
.05,
N
=
2,453,
␹2(198)
=
2320.76,
CFI
=
.93,
TLI
=
.91,
RMSEA
=
.07
(95
%
CI
[.06,
.07]),
SRMR
=
.06.
4.4.
Associations
between
eco-emotions
and
pro-climate
behaviour
Our
second
SEM,
depicted
in
Fig.
2,
reveals
the
distinct
pattern
of
associations
between
eco-emotions
and
pro-climate
behaviour.
Eco-anger
is
the
only
significant
predictor
of
personal
behaviour,
suggesting
that
more
intense
experiences
of
frustration
and
anger
in
relation
to
climate
change
are
associated
with
greater
attempts
to
take
personal
actions
to
address
the
issue.
Meanwhile,
all
three
climate-related
emotions
predict
collective
action
behaviour,
but
in
different
ways.
Eco-anger
and
eco-depression
relate
to
greater
engagement
in
collective
action,
while
eco-anxiety
predicts
lower
collective
action,
or
disengagement
with
the
pro-climate
move-
ment.
5.
Discussion
We
examined
how
different
negative
emotions
evoked
by
climate
change
each
relate
to
mental
health
and
pro-climate
beha-
viour.
Each
eco-emotion
on
its
own
appeared
to
contribute
to
lower
wellbeing
and
more
pro-climate
behaviours.
Considering
all
three
eco-emotions
together,
though,
changes
this
pattern
of
results.
Loo-
king
at
the
unique
effects
of
each
eco-emotion,
while
holding
the
effects
of
the
other
two
emotions
constant,
reveals
that
eco-anxiety
and
eco-depression
had
negative
effects
on
wellbeing,
but
expe-
riencing
eco-anger
predicted
lower
depression,
anxiety,
and
stress.
We
therefore
contribute
to
knowledge
on
emotional
responses
to
climate
change
by
revealing
the
differential
associations
negative
eco-emotions
have
with
wellbeing
outcomes,
thus
highlighting
the
importance
of
considering
negative
eco-emotions
separately
but
together.
We
are
also
the
first
to
show
that
eco-anger
is
uniquely
associated
with
greater
engagement
in
both
personal
and
collec-
tive
pro-climate
behaviours,
while
eco-depression
and
eco-anxiety
were
unrelated
to
personal
behaviour,
and
eco-anxiety
predicted
lower
engagement
in
collective
action.
Moderate-to-strong
relationships
between
negative
eco-
emotions
and
general
wellbeing
suggest
that
the
way
Australians
feel
about
climate
change
is
intertwined
with
their
everyday
func-
tioning.
This
could
be
due
to
how
well
people
cope
with
the
climate
crisis.
Homburg
and
colleagues
[25,26]
argue
that
expressing
emo-
tions
is
a
particular
form
of
coping
with
environmental
stressors,
and
this
expression
promotes
pro-environmental
behaviour.
Our
results
indicate
that
eco-anger
may
be
a
healthy
and
adaptive
form
of
expressive
coping,
while
eco-depression
and
eco-anxiety
may
instead
be
debilitating.
Homburg
et
al.’s
[26]
measure
of
emotional
expression
contained
a
mix
of
feelings
of
anger
and
depression,
reflecting
a
broader
issue
hampering
research
in
this
area:
negative
eco-emotions
are
regularly
conflated
(e.g.,
Searle
and
Gow’s
[16]
climate
anxiety
scale
includes
emotions
as
diverse
as
anger
and
depression).
Eco-anxiety
should
not
be
studied
as
an
isolated
emotional
experience,
as
it
risks
the
erroneous
conclusion
that
eco-
anxiety
enhances
behavioural
engagement.
We
recommend
that
models
and
measures
of
eco-emotion-driven
action
delineate
the
eco-emotions
to
better
capture
the
different
associations
with
well-
being
and
pro-climate
behaviour.
Our
research
showed
the
utility
of
a
new
6-item
scale
to
measure
three
distinct
eco-emotions,
the-
refore
facilitating
this
future
research.
Our
findings
highlight
that
frustration
and
anger
about
the
cli-
mate
crisis
are
adaptive
responses.
Experiences
of
injustice
or
unfairness
tend
to
provoke
group-based
anger,
motivating
collec-
tive
(and
not
individual)
action
[18].
If
we
think
about
climate
change
as
an
injustice
(e.g.,
generationally,
socially,
and
geographi-
cally),
the
equally
strong
eco-anger–personal
behaviour
association
suggests
that,
in
the
climate
change
context,
the
eco-angry
reco-
gnise
the
importance
of
addressing
their
own
daily
behaviours
as
part
of
the
collective
goal
of
mitigating
climate
change.
Another
interesting
finding
was
that
eco-depression
related
to
greater
engagement
in
collective
action
behaviours.
This
effect
was
unexpected,
though
may
be
explained
by
the
restorative
effects
of
acting.
Eco-depression
had
concerning
associations
with
wellbeing,
with
those
depressed
and
miserable
about
climate
change
expe-
riencing
greater
depression,
anxiety,
and
stress
generally.
Based
on
these
wellbeing
correlates,
we
do
not
suggest
encouraging
eco-
depression
to
motivate
climate
action.
Instead,
our
results
suggest
encouraging
eco-anger
may
promote
positive
pro-climate
beha-
viour
change,
while
preserving
mental
health.
Without
further
work
exploring
the
potentially
causal
nature
of
these
relationships,
our
recommendations
are
tentative.
With
the
causality
caveat
in
mind,
our
findings
contribute
to
continuing
debates
about
how
to
communicate
climate
change.
Some
researchers
argue
that
presenting
a
positive
picture
of
an
alternative
future
motivates
pro-environmental
lifestyle
changes
[27],
while
negative
framing,
which
presumably
evokes
negative
eco-emotions,
provokes
disengagement
[14],
and
may
even
bolster
scepticism
[28].
Conversely,
some
fear
appeals
have
enhanced
pro-
environmental
behaviours
[15,29].
We
suggest
that
fear
appeals
might
work
to
the
extent
they
also
drive
anger,
and
that
tes-
ting
anger
appeals
is
a
useful
direction
for
future
research.
Better
understanding
the
targets
of
eco-anger
–
whether
anger
is
directed
toward
specific
individuals,
groups,
institutions,
or
something
else
–
will
guide
the
development
of
anger-based
messaging
that
avoids
inadvertently
fostering
eco-depression.
Our
findings
suggest
that
those
advocating
for
climate
action,
as
well
as
public
communication
and
education
campaigns,
may
be
more
successful
if
they
rely
on
anger-based
messaging.
Meanw-
hile,
messaging
that
makes
people
feel
anxious
or
depressed
about
climate
change
may
be
unsuccessful,
or
potentially
dangerous
for
community
wellbeing.
Similarly,
governments
at
all
levels
must
remain
mindful
that
the
success
of
policies
designed
to
promote
or
inhibit
particular
behaviours
will
depend
partly
on
people’s
emo-
tional
responses
to
those
policies
and
how
they
are
framed.
They
might
do
well
to
remember,
too,
that
governments
are
often
the
target
of
anger
about
(in)action
on
climate
change.
As
our
data
were
cross-sectional,
our
findings
contribute
just
one
piece
to
a
broader
puzzle.
We
recommend
testing
the
repli-
cability
of
these
associations
using
longitudinal
and
experimental
research
to
better
understand
how
the
eco-emotions
causally
relate
to
each
other,
and
to
wellbeing
and
behavioural
outcomes.
For
ins-
tance,
it
is
possible
that
engaging
in
pro-climate
behaviours
evokes
certain
emotions
about
climate
change,
rather
than
the
reverse
direction,
or
that
those
experiencing
poorer
mental
health
have
4

S.K.
Stanley,
T.L.
Hogg,
Z.
Leviston
et
al.
The
Journal
of
Climate
Change
and
Health
1
(2021)
100003
more
negative
reactions
to
climate
change.
What
is
clear
from
our
research
is
that
mental
health
and
reactions
to
climate
change
are
inextricably
linked,
and
health
professionals
and
climate
change
communicators
alike
must
be
mindful
of
this.
6.
Conclusions
We
show
that
eco-anger
co-occurs
with
eco-depression
and
eco-anxiety,
and
each
eco-emotion
has
a
unique
role
in
(de)motivating
collective
action
behaviour.
Our
research
suggests
eco-anger
may
be
uniquely
protective
of
both
the
environment
and
personal
wellbeing,
and
that
ignoring
the
overlap
between
the
eco-emotions
could
lead
to
the
conclusion
that
eco-anxiety
and
eco-depression
are
similarly
potent.
Our
research
forges
a
path
for
future
research
on
what
makes
people
angry
about
the
climate
cri-
sis,
how
to
foster
eco-anger
without
simultaneously
inducing
other
negative
eco-emotions,
and
how
to
harness
eco-anger
to
drive
pro-
climate
action
for
the
benefit
of
human
and
planetary
health.
Declaration
of
Competing
Interest
The
authors
declare
that
they
have
no
known
competing
finan-
cial
interests
or
personal
relationships
that
could
have
appeared
to
influence
the
work
reported
in
this
paper.
Acknowledgement
Data
collection
for
this
project
was
supported
by
funds
awarded
to
Professor
Iain
Walker
from
the
Research
School
of
Psychology
at
the
Australian
National
University,
Australia.
Appendix
A.
Supplementary
data
Supplementary
material
related
to
this
article
can
be
found,
in
the
online
version,
at
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.joclim.2021.100003.
Références
[1]
Maibach
E,
Miller
J,
Armstrong
F,
El
Omrani
O,
Zhang
Y,
Philpott
N,
et
al.
Health
professionals,
the
Paris
agreement,
and
the
fierce
urgency
of
now.
J
Clim
Change
Health
2020:100002,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2020.100002.
[2]
Fritze
JG,
Blashki
GA,
Burke
S,
Wiseman
J.
Hope,
despair
and
transformation:
climate
change
and
the
promotion
of
mental
health
and
wellbeing.
Int
J
Mental
Health
2008;2:1–10,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-2-13.
[3]
Clayton
S,
Manning
C,
Krygsman
K,
Speiser
M.
Mental
health
and
our
changing
climate:
impacts,
implications,
and
guidance.
Washington,
DC:
American
Psychological
Association
and
ecoAmerica;
2017.
[4]
Pihkala
P.
Anxiety
and
the
ecological
crisis:
an
analysis
of
eco-anxiety
and
climate
anxiety.
Sustainability
2020;12:7836,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12197836.
[5]
Albrecht
G.
‘Solastalgia’
A
new
concept
in
health
and
identity.
PAN
2005;3:41.
[6]
Clayton
S,
Karazsia
BT.
Development
and
validation
of
a
measure
of
climate
change
anxiety.
J
Environ
Psychol
2020:101434,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434.
[7]
Tschakert
P,
Ellis
NR,
Anderson
C,
Kelly
A,
Obeng
J.
One
thousand
ways
to
experience
loss:
a
systematic
analysis
of
climate-related
intangible
harm
from
around
the
world.
Glob
Environ
Change
2019;55:58–72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.006.
[8]
Feldman
Barrett
L,
Russell
JA.
The
structure
of
current
affect:
controversies
and
emerging
consensus.
Curr
Dir
Psychol
Sci
1999;8:10–4.
[9]
Harmon-Jones
E.
Anger
and
the
behavioral
approach
system.
Pers
Individ
Differ
2003;35:995–1005,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00313-6.
[10]
Osbourne
D,
Smith
HJ,
Huo
YJ.
More
than
a
feeling:
discrete
emotions
mediate
the
relationship
between
relative
deprivation
and
reactions
to
workplace
furloughs.
Pers
Soc
Psychol
Bull
2012;38:628–41,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432766.
[11]
Miller
DA,
Cronin
T,
Garcia
AL,
Branscombe
NR.
The
relative
impact
of
anger
and
efficacy
on
collective
action
is
affected
by
feelings
of
fear.
Group
Process
Intergroup
Relat
2009;12:445–62,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105046.
[12]
Lu
H,
Schuldt
JP.
Exploring
the
role
of
incidental
emotions
in
support
for
climate
change
policy.
Clim
Change
2015;131:719–26,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1443-x.
[13]
Smith
N,
Leiserowitz
A.
The
role
of
emotion
in
global
warming
policy
support
and
opposition.
Risk
Anal
2014;34:937–48,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140.
[14]
O’Neill
S,
Nicholson-Cole
S.
“Fear
won’t
do
it”:
promoting
positive
engagement
with
climate
change
through
visual
and
iconic
representations.
Sci
Commun
2009;30:355–79,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201.
[15]
Meijnders
AL,
Midden
CJ,
Wilke
HA.
Communications
about
environmental
risks
and
risk-reducing
behavior:
the
impact
of
fear
on
information
processing.
J
Appl
Soc
Psychol
2001;31:754–77,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01412.x.
[16]
Searle
K,
Gow
K.
Do
concerns
about
climate
change
lead
to
distress?
Int
J
Clim
Chang
Str
2010;2:362–79,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17568691011089891.
[17]
Iyer
A,
Schmader
T,
Lickel
B.
Why
individuals
protest
the
perceived
transgressions
of
their
country:
the
role
of
anger,
shame,
and
guilt.
Pers
Soc
Psychol
Bull
2007;33:572–87,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206297402.
[18]
Van
Zomeren
M,
Spears
R,
Fischer
AH,
Leach
CW.
Put
your
money
where
your
mouth
is
!
Explaining
collective
action
tendencies
through
group-based
anger
and
group
efficacy.
J
Pers
Soc
Psychol
2004;87:649–64,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649.
[19]
Myers
TA,
Nisbet
MC,
Maibach
EW,
Leiserowitz
AA.
A
public
health
frame
arouses
hopeful
emotions
about
climate
change.
Clim
Change
2012;113:1105–12,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6.
[20]
Australian
Bureau
of
Statistics.
Census
QuickStats;
2016,
2020
[Accessed
13
January
2021]
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/
2016/quickstat/036?opendocument.
[21]
Hornsey
MJ,
Harris
EA,
Bain
PG,
Fielding
KS.
Meta-analyses
of
the
determinants
and
outcomes
of
belief
in
climate
change.
Nat
Clim
Change
2016;6:622–6,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943.
[22]
Moshagen
M,
Erdfelder
E.
A
new
strategy
for
testing
structural
equation
models.
Struct
Equ
Modeling
2016;23:54–60,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.950896.
[23]
Lovibond
SH,
Lovibond
PF.
Manual
for
the
depression
anxiety
stress
Scales.
Sydney:
Psychology
Foundation;
1995.
[24]
Rosseel
Y.
Lavaan:
an
R
package
for
structural
equation
modeling
and
more.
Version
0.5–12
(BETA).
J
Stat
Softw
2012;48:1–36.
[25]
Homburg
A,
Stolberg
A.
Explaining
pro-environmental
behavior
with
a
cognitive
theory
of
stress.
J
Environ
Psychol
2006;26:1–14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.003.
[26]
Homburg
A,
Stolberg
A,
Wagner
U.
Coping
with
global
environmental
problems:
development
and
first
validation
of
scales.
Environ
Behav
2007;39:754–78,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297215.
[27]
Manzo
K.
Beyond
polar
bears?
Re-envisioning
climate
change.
Meteor
Appl
2010;17:196–208,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.193.
[28]
Feinberg
M,
Willer
R.
Apocalypse
soon?
Dire
messages
reduce
belief
in
global
warming
by
contradicting
just-world
beliefs.
Psychol
Sci
2011;22:34–8,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911.
[29]
Hine
DW,
Gifford
R.
Fear
appeals,
individual
differences,
and
environmental
concern.
J
Environ
Educ
1991;23:36–41,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1991.9943068.
Glossary
Eco-anger:
Feelings
of
anger
or
frustration
about
climate
change.
Eco-anxiety:
Anxiety
experienced
in
response
to
climate
change
or
environmental
degradation.
Eco-depression:
Feelings
of
depression
and
misery
about
climate
change.
Expressive
coping:
Coping
(e.g.,
with
climate
change)
by
expressing
emotions,
such
as
anger
or
sadness.
Solastalgia:
Distress
caused
by
the
painful
‘lived
experience’
of
environmental
des-
truction.
5