Moved to action ?
Does being more anxious about environmental issues motivate or hinder pro-environmental behaviours?
Hello, and welcome to the sixth post on Compassionate Nature. This post follows on from last week’s look at environmental related anxiety and grief, which also included the consideration of eco-compassion as a potentially helpful approach to motivating action and behaviours in response to the distress. However some studies suggest that rather than being motivating, the distress actually results in a lack of action.
One of the questions in the previous post was “does the use of the term anxiety also suggest an inability to respond, while concern is more indicative of a motivation?” In that post the results of Lutz et al. (2023a) paper on a proposed continuum of ecological distress also noted that participants levels of nature connectedness and their pro-environmental behaviours appeared to be mitigating factors to the distress. This feels intuitively valid - when we feel concerned about something, we often try to do something about it.
However this is psychological research and often what may appear intuitively correct can be more complicated or nuanced. What do other recent studies tell us about the relationship between environmental related distress and pro-environmental behaviours?
As always a definition is helpful - pro-environmental behaviours are actions and choices individuals make which are beneficial to the environment, such as reducing water usage, using sustainable transport options, and recycling or reusing rather than disposing of things. These behaviours have often been investigated through more cognitive based theories such as the Values-Belief-Norms theory (Stern et al., 1999) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
Action…or not…or maybe both
Some theoretical perspectives suggest that awareness of climate change and environmental issues may lead to or maintain pro-environmental behaviours. However, the question of whether eco-anxiety results in passive behaviour or motivated behaviours is not so clear. Some studies suggest higher anxiety does provide a motivation for pro-environmental behaviours as an adaptive coping mechanism while other studies find the opposite, with the distress leading to inaction or eco-paralysis.
Innocenti et al., (2023) considered whether climate change anxiety, a sub-construct of eco-anxiety, resulted in action or inaction towards pro-environmental behaviours and how this related to an individuals sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to be able to take actions to achieve a goal and was defined by Bandura (1982). The theory suggests that those with higher self-efficacy will tackle challenges rather than perceiving them as a threat, resulting in lower emotional arousal, while those with lower self-efficacy will feel threatened which may lead to avoidance, often resulting in increased emotional distress. Innocenti et al.’s study of nearly 400 Italian adults, who were mainly female with a mean age of 33, used self-report measures to assess levels of pro-environmental behaviours, general self-efficacy and cognitive impacts from climate change anxiety. The results suggest that climate anxiety can result in both motivation and paralysis depending on levels of general self-efficacy. Where individuals feel able to take action then the distress can be motivating towards pro-environmental behaviour, with a positive feedback loop to their sense of self-efficacy. However when a sense of self-efficacy is low then the distress supports a more passive response. This finding may have implications for helping people with severe eco-anxiety, encouraging them to develop pro-environmental behaviours as coping mechanisms for the distress, while also benefitting their general sense of self-efficacy. The study has sample limitations, no causality can be assumed and eco-paralysis was indirectly inferred from levels of pro-environmental behaviours.
Mathers-Jones & Todd (2023) undertook a similar study considering eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour relationships, alongside the consideration of attentional bias. Attentional bias refers to what we tend to focus on, with anxiety being linked to increased awareness and sense of threat. Unlike Innocenti et al., this study measured self-efficacy directly related to environmental action, not in a wider, general sense. The study specifically explored if imagery relating to climate change solutions (positive stimuli) or the consequences of climate change (negative stimuli) impacted upon levels of pro-environmental behaviours. The sample was principally Australian undergraduate students aged 18-30 (mean age 20), 70% of which were female, with the sample having overall low levels of eco-anxiety, high environmental self-efficacy and high pro-environmental behaviour levels.After being screened for climate change beliefs, participants completed self-report measures of eco-anxiety, environmental-related self-efficacy and mental wellbeing, followed by a dot-probe test using positive, negative and neutral images. This test is designed to measure where our attention focus goes when presented with each stimuli. Each participant then kept a diary for one week noting their pro-environmental behaviours. The results suggest that eco-anxiety positively correlated with levels of pro-environmental behaviours, while greater attention to negative stimuli predicted lower levels of those behaviours. There also appeared to be a positive correlation between eco-anxiety to both anxiety and depression. The authors suggest that, like other types of anxiety, the relationship between eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviours is not linear, with a point at which the anxiety becomes maladaptive. Aside from the limitations of the sample and correlational design, the motivation for doing the pro-environmental behaviour was not captured in the diaries. As these behaviours can result from other reasons, e.g. to save money, the motivation to do so in response to environmental related emotional distress cannot be established. However the study results have implications for potential interventions to address eco-anxiety, highlighting the possibility of attentional training to help support pro-environmental behaviours as adaptive coping responses.
More time required.
Both of those studies, like a lot of studies around eco-anxiety appear to be, have a key limitation of being cross-sectional, so longevity of relationships between emotional distress and behaviours cannot be determined. Longitudinal studies may help, an approach taken by two other recently published papers.
Lutz et al. (2023b) looked at whether eco-anxiety could be assessed as a state anxiety as well as a trait anxiety, which most studies assess it as, along with considering if fluctuations in severity across time effected pro-environmental behaviours and mental wellbeing. The study had a sample of 132 Canadian undergraduate students, with 73% being female and with a mean age of 21. Using a mobile phone app, the participants provided a baseline, followed by daily tracking over 14 days, of self-report measures covering eco anxiety, motive, positive and negative affect, coherence (relating to meaning in life) and pro-environmental behaviour. Overall the sample had low levels of eco-anxiety at baseline and across the two week period, although I did wonder if this was due to the eco-anxiety measure used and the consideration from last week that such measures may be more suitable for higher severity levels. Even so, the study showed a relationship between eco-anxiety and affect, such that heightened anxiety levels increased negative affect but did not appear to reduce positive affect. Eco-anxiety also positively correlated with pro-environmental behaviours. No relationship was found between eco-anxiety and meaning in life. There are sample limitations and two weeks is a fairly short duration, however the results suggest that when individuals felt greater eco-anxiety they tended to self-report greater pro-environmental behaviour and reduced wellbeing. Time lag analysis also suggested that higher levels of eco-anxiety on one day predicted reduced levels of wellbeing in subsequent days. Importantly the results suggest eco-anxiety can be assessed as both a trait or a state anxiety which provides opportunities for future research.
Pavini et al., (2023) also took a longitudinal approach, using two points of measurements over a month apart to assess if eco-anxiety motivated pro-environmental behaviours. They also controlled for potentially confounding individual differences of environmental identity and personality type. The sample of 167 French adults, mean age of 37 of whom 65% were female, completed a baseline of self-report measures covering eco-anxiety, pro-environmental behaviour, ecological attitudes and personality type (based on the “big 5” types) which was repeated around a month later. The study suggests that baseline eco-anxiety positively correlated with later pro-environmental behaviour at the second time point, with personality type and ecological identity not effecting the results when controlled for. It also appeared that those with higher eco-anxiety were more likely to increase their pro-environmental behaviours. So overall it supports a motivational link from eco-anxiety, although it is a small sample due to the 52% attrition rate in repossess at the second time point, and there is the risk of participants reporting more favourably their behaviours at time two due to social desirability bias.
It’s motivating then ?
Overall these 4 recent studies lean more towards eco-anxiety being a motivational influence on pro-environmental behaviours, although where reported the effect sizes were small to moderate. However, as these and last week’s studies show, the topic of eco-anxiety in all its forms and impacts needs more research to inform much more nuanced discussion than media headlines may suggest. It is likely the topic of eco-anxiety will feature in future posts, as there are many more related considerations not covered so far and it is an area of increasing research focus. I had intended to reflect on the relationship of nature connection and eco-anxiety in this post, however that deserves a post of its own in the future.
There is also the consideration of interventions for eco-anxiety and coincidently as I published last week’s post Frida Hylander over at Climate Psyched published a helpful summary of what is claimed to be the worlds first RCT of an intervention for climate anxiety.
A research related aside. You may have spotted that I am highlighting limitations such as sample size or participants demographics or that samples were from undergraduate populations (or indeed all three!). While it could be argued that in the case of eco-anxiety, with a suggested higher prevalence in younger people, the undergraduate population is not an issue, these limitations should be borne in mind when interpreting results. That is one of a number of important general considerations for psychological research, which I will expand on in future posts, starting next week with a look at some key measures used in environmental psychology.
Any answers?
Reflecting back on my questions when starting to write these two posts leads to some final thoughts. I had unease with the use of the word anxiety, with that unease having now lessened, as it seems clear there is a difference between concern and severe distress resulting from either direct or indirect experience of climate change or environmental impacts, which in some cases will require supportive interventions to address. Given the increasing number of people and populations experiencing the consequences of climate change as well as growing awareness and reporting, then there is an urgent need for psychology to deepen understanding of how to best help with the distress, and indeed with behavioural changes, which these studies contribute to.
It is also worth reiterating that pro-environmental behaviours are not solely driven by negative affect. Indeed in some cases they are more likely to motivated by many other reasons, such as saving money, convenience or positive affect, with the benefit to the environment being a background consideration, even an unintended bonus. Does that matter ? Not really, it means that there are other motivations and reasons that can be appealed to other than directly addressing environmental distress, which may be useful in getting people to take action who have differing perspectives on the urgency required.
A last, vitally important reflection. These studies highlight the need to help individuals address distress and make a positive contribution through their consumption and behavioural choices. However, it would be utterly wrong to place the full focus on individuals when large-scale systemic economic, political and cultural changes are urgently required to address climate change and environmental loss.
Whether those in the position to lead such changes are motivated by environmental concern is perhaps the biggest remaining question.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic (or any previous posts) so please feel free to add a comment to the post on Substack, send me an email at TheCompassionateNatureHub@gmail.com or add a reply if you see it via a social media post.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Innocenti, M., Santarelli, G., Lombardi, G. S., Ciabini, L., Zjalic, D., Di Russo, M., & Cadeddu, C. (2023). How can climate change anxiety induce both pro-environmental behaviours and eco-paralysis? The mediating role of general self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043085
Lutz, P. K., Passmore, H. A., Howell, A. J., Zelenski, J. M., Yang, Y., & Richardson, M. (2023a). The continuum of eco-anxiety responses: A preliminary investigation of its nomological network. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), 67838. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.67838
Lutz, P. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Newman, D. B. (2023b). Eco-anxiety in daily life: Relationships with well-being and pro-environmental behavior. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100110
Mathers-Jones, J., & Todd, J. (2023). Ecological anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour: The role of attention. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 98, 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102745
Pavani, JB., Nicolas, L. & Bonetto, E. (2023) Eco-Anxiety motivates pro-environmental behaviors: a two-wave longitudinal study. Motive and Emotion, 47, 1062–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10038-x
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 81-97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707060