# Three ways to cope with ecological stress: development and validation of a scale and exploration of its links with eco-anxiety

Hélène Jalin, Arnaud Sapin, Anne Congard, Abdel Halim Boudoukha

## ► To cite this version:

Hélène Jalin, Arnaud Sapin, Anne Congard, Abdel Halim Boudoukha. Three ways to cope with ecological stress: development and validation of a scale and exploration of its links with eco-anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025, 108, pp.102805. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102805. hal-05327576

HAL Id: hal-05327576

https://nantes-universite.hal.science/hal-05327576v1

Submitted on 23 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Three ways to cope with ecological stress: development and validation of a scale and exploration of its links with eco-anxiety

Hélène Jalin* , Arnaud Sapin, Anne Congard, Abdel Halim Boudoukha

Nantes Université, Univ Angers, Laboratoire de psychologie des Pays de la Loire, LPPL, UR 4638, F-44000, Nantes, France

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

CES

Eco-anxiety

Environmental stress

Climate change

## ABSTRACT

**Introduction:** Studies on psychological adaptation to ecological stress are still relatively rare, despite its crucial importance for both individual well-being and the future of the planet.

**Method:** On the basis of a preliminary qualitative study (Study 1), we developed and validated a scale to measure coping strategies in response to ecological stress (Study 2). We then used this scale to study how people coped with stress depending on their level of eco-anxiety, and carried out a network analysis to determine whether individuals used certain combinations of strategies (Study 3).

**Results:** The scale includes 26 items divided into ten subscales corresponding to distinct coping strategies. The most eco-anxious individuals made greater use of most coping strategies, with the exception of denial, positive reappraisal and humor. A cluster analysis revealed three distinct combinations of strategies, the first characterized by rumination and self-blame, the second on problem-solving, social support and meaning-seeking, and the last on denial and positive reappraisal.

**Discussion:** This research provides a valuable scale for exploring the factors influencing how individuals cope with environmental stress. By targeting certain “pivotal” strategies, virtuous circles could be set in motion, fostering both behavioral commitment to the environment and well-being.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Coping with ecological stress

Confronted with the ecological crisis - including climate change, biodiversity loss, and large-scale environmental degradation - individuals experience various forms of stress, which we here define as ecological stress. Ecological stress can be defined as the psychological stress that arises from the perception or anticipation of environmental threats resulting from large-scale ecological changes (Helm et al., 2018; Reser & Swim, 2011). In the present study, we examine coping with ecological stressors, defined as psychological strategies used to manage perceived threats associated with large-scale ecological threats, such as climate change or biodiversity loss. Individuals react to stress in different ways, ranging from denial or indifference to extreme eco-anxiety (Clayton, 2020; Pihkala, 2019). Coping refers to the "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of a person" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141).

Early coping classifications divided strategies broadly by their orientation (problem-focused or emotion-focused) (Endler & Parker, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), but these classifications have since expanded to encompass a wide range of strategies that take into account the complexities introduced by cultural and contextual variations, including the type of stress experienced (Ayers et al., 1989; Carver & Scheier, 1994; Endler & Parker, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The question of what constitutes an adaptive strategy is thus more complex than a simple dichotomy between active and passive approaches. While problem-solving is often considered more adaptive and has generally been associated with better long-term well-being (O'Driscoll et al., 2009, pp. 237-266; Taylor & Stanton, 2007), many authors consider that the effectiveness of a strategy depends more on its appropriateness to the context (Cummings & Cooper, 1998; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) and the degree of control an individual might perceive they have over the situation. For example, avoidance or venting are considered to be more appropriate in the case of emotionally intense situations or situations perceived as uncontrollable (Ben-Zur, 2009). In the context of environmental issues, the term "adaptive" itself can be ambiguous: a

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: helene.jalin@univ-nantes.fr (H. Jalin), arnaud.sapin@univ-nantes.fr (A. Sapin), anne.congard@univ-nantes.fr (A. Congard), abdel-halim.boudoukha@univ-nantes.fr (A.H. Boudoukha).</footnote>
given strategy may foster psychological well-being while reducing engagement with ecological challenges, or conversely, may support pro-environmental action at the expense of individual mental health. This dual perspective (well-being versus environmental engagement) is central to the present study's approach to coping.

Yet the ecological crisis is a very specific stressor: firstly, it is unprecedented in modern human history, so it is impossible to refer to known facts to assess its potential impacts (Calvin et al., 2023). Secondly, it is attributed to complex causes and effects, and no action taken individually or even as a group could resolve it on its own (Reser & Swim, 2011). Thirdly, it can be understood as a chronic and global stressor likely to persist and intensify over time (Helm et al., 2022). For these reasons, and because of its potentially dramatic consequences for humanity, it can be perceived as uncontrollable and has the potential to generate intense emotions once the individual accepts its reality (Pihkala, 2022). In the face of this situation, individuals are prone to adopting various self-protective coping strategies such as denial or avoidance (Cagle & Herndl, 2019; Gibson, 2019; Hadarics, 2021). However, the behavioral commitment required to bring about positive change in the ecological crisis means that individuals are turning more towards problem-solving strategies. Humanity is in a paradoxical situation in which what is psychologically protective for individual well-being in the short term could prove devastating in the longer term.

Over the last few decades, numerous studies have explored psychological factors influencing pro-environmental behavior (Corral-Verdugo, 2021). One way of looking at this issue is to consider this action-oriented strategy as an option for regulating stress and unpleasant emotions. However, there are many other strategies, such as denial, excessive optimism, distraction-seeking, avoidance of information or discussions relative to the climate crisis. All these strategies represent what we conceptualize in this study as coping with ecological stressors. Research on such coping strategies remains limited, despite their growing relevance. Ojala (2013) pioneered this investigation by examining how different approaches to coping with ecological stress influence negative affect among adolescents, demonstrating the particular importance of meaning-seeking strategies for fostering well-being and environmental commitment (Ojala, 2013). This strategy involves integrating lived experiences with deeper values or beliefs, fostering an expanded sense of self (e.g., social or ecological self), or cultivating authentic sources of hope (Seth et al., 2023). More recently, Helm et al. (2018) demonstrated that engagement in strategies for coping with ecological stress (regardless of their type) positively predicted behavioral responses aimed at mitigating climate change effects.

It is probable that most individuals use a combination of strategies to mitigate the emotional response to stress. Indeed, integrative approaches to stress have recognized that coping strategies are not only diverse, but also dynamic and interdependent, and are often used in tandem depending on situational demands (Compas et al., 2014; Skinner et al., 2003). Recent studies suggest that examining coping profiles, or combinations of strategies, may be more valuable than analyzing individual strategies in isolation (Eisenbarth, 2012). Cluster analysis has emerged as a promising method for identifying subgroups of individuals with different coping profiles, which can be associated with various health outcomes (Eisenbarth, 2012). One particularly interesting model distinguishes between two types of coping profile combinations: active strategies (e.g., problem-solving, social support-seeking, meaning-seeking, planning, positive reappraisal), and passive strategies (e.g., denial, avoidance, minimization, self-blame, venting) (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Eisenbarth, 2012; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the face of the ecological crisis, active coping strategies could involve, for example, seeking information on the subject or modifying one's own behaviors (problem-solving coping), but also engaging in militant group actions (problem-solving coping and seeking social support), or working on oneself, reconnecting with nature, or seeking answers and reasons for hope in spirituality (meaning-seeking coping). Passive strategies might include distancing oneself from information and discussions related to

the ecological crisis (avoidance), seeking distraction through consumption (distraction-seeking) or strongly expressing emotions such as anxiety, sadness or guilt without taking action (rumination, self-blame). In 2022, Helm et al. used a person-centered approach to identify psychological adaptation profiles in response to global environmental threats. Based on latent profile analysis, they distinguished two main profiles: an adaptive approach profile, characterized by proactive engagement, and a maladaptive avoidance profile, marked by denial and disengagement. These profiles were significantly associated with mental health outcomes and levels of pro-environmental behavior, highlighting the importance of understanding individual differences in coping with ecological stress (Helm et al., 2022).

For the moment, despite its critical significance for both individual well-being and the planet's future, research on coping with ecological stress remains relatively scarce.

## 1.2. Assessing coping with ecological stressors

To our knowledge, only one existing scale specifically measures coping with ecological stress - the instrument developed by Homburg & Stolberg, 2006. It comprises 41 items and evaluates eight different strategies including, in addition to problem-solving, seven emotion-oriented strategies, namely emotional expression (e.g., "I become angry when I see what is happening there"), guilt denial (e.g., "I think there is nothing to blame myself for"), relativization (e.g., "I think there is a way out"), wishful thinking (e.g., "I wish nature could help itself"), self-protection against the impacts of climate change (e.g., "Due to the air pollution, I tend to avoid roads with heavy traffic for longer"), pleasure-seeking (e.g., "If possible, I feel comfortable despite the environmental changes") and resignation (e.g., "I don't think we will be spared anything"). This scale is interesting because it highlights several strategies that have since been studied, such as rumination and distraction-seeking. However, it offers no subscale for assessing some of the strategies most frequently evoked in recent research, such as denial of the crisis's severity, avoidance of information related to it (Cagle & Herndl, 2019; Dodds, 2021; Uhl et al., 2018; Witkowski & Boy, 2023), positive reappraisal, which involves believing that technological progress will solve the problem (Morozov, 2014), or seeking social support (Reser & Swim, 2011; Stanley et al., 2021), even though these strategies appear to be widespread.

More recently, a self-protection scale has been developed by Wullenkord and Reese (2021). It measures the tendency of individuals to adopt strategies such as denial of environmental problems, minimization of their severity or avoidance of worrying climate-related information. However, once again, this scale focuses solely on certain self-protective strategies, excluding the other strategies mentioned above.

Finally, no currently validated scale comprehensively captures the full spectrum of strategies for coping with ecological stressors, particularly in terms of strategy diversity and breadth. This limitation restricts the ability to assess a broader range of coping strategies that individuals might employ in response to environmental challenges. Such a comprehensive scale is essential for an accurate understanding of how people manage the psychological impact of environmental issues and for developing effective interventions to promote resilient and proactive responses.

## 1.3. Eco-anxiety and ecological coping

While ecological stress refers to the biopsychological response that arises when ecological threats are appraised as significant and potentially overwhelming, eco-anxiety can be defined as one specific emotional response within this broader stress process. Eco-anxiety refers to a form of distress or persistent worry related to the anticipated or experienced consequences of the ecological crisis, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation (Clayton,
2020; Pihkala, 2019). It can induce negative changes in emotions, mood and cognition, sometimes with significant functional repercussions (Jalin, Chandes, et al., 2024). Eco-anxiety may be considered pathological when the level of distress becomes excessive or when it significantly impairs daily functioning (Clayton, 2020; Coffey et al., 2021). The link between eco-anxiety and behavioral engagement in environmental issues is increasingly studied, though findings remain mixed. Some studies suggest that individuals with heightened eco-anxiety may engage more actively in pro-environmental behaviors (Jalin, Sapin, et al., 2024; Ojala, 2012; Stanley et al., 2021; Taufik & Venhoeven, 2018), while others point to a more complex picture depending on the type of action involved (Whitmarsh et al., 2022), and the directionality of the relationship (Kühner et al., 2024). It is possible that individuals experiencing eco-anxiety employ more problem-solving strategies than others, but the full spectrum of coping strategies they mobilize, including potentially disengaging or ambivalent responses, remains to be explored.

Questions arise regarding the efficacy of these strategies on their well-being and the potential for these strategies to provide relief from environmental stress. Understanding which strategies - or combinations thereof - offer relief is crucial for designing therapeutic interventions that support individuals with pathological eco-anxiety. Therapists working with eco-anxious clients require insights into their clients' conditions and methods to foster the development of psychological resources to cope with environmental stress effectively (Baudon & Jachens, 2021). The recent rise in climate skepticism observed in various populations (Witkowski & Boy, 2023) raises crucial issues about the underlying causes. Identifying the factors - psychological, social, cultural, familial, geographical, and climatic - that influence the adoption of self-protective strategies resulting in paralysis and/or denial is vital for the planet's future. Understanding these mechanisms is also key to designing effective awareness campaigns that promote beneficial coping strategies. For instance, climate communication efforts targeting young audiences, such as school-based environmental education programs or emotionally charged campaigns by NGOs, could be improved by explicitly incorporating insights on how individuals manage distress related to environmental threats. This might involve encouraging constructive emotional regulation and reinforcing collective efficacy, rather than triggering avoidance or paralysis.

## 1.4. Objectives

To advance understanding of how individuals cope with environmental challenges, this study aims to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire assessing strategies for coping with ecological stressors. Given the increasing concerns about the environment and the rise of eco-anxiety, it is imperative to establish a reliable and valid scale that can effectively measure the coping mechanisms people employ in response to environmental stress. Existing coping scales are either too narrow in scope - focusing only on a limited set of emotion-oriented or self-protective strategies - or are not adapted to the specific context of environmental stress. As a result, they fail to capture the diversity of responses currently observed in empirical research. This justifies the need for a comprehensive and context-sensitive tool designed specifically to assess coping with ecological stressors.

This endeavor began with a preliminary qualitative study (Study 1), which provided the foundational insights necessary to construct the questionnaire items. This study captured a wide array of strategies adopted by individuals experiencing eco-anxiety, informing the content and structure of the proposed questionnaire. Subsequently, the psychometric properties of the questionnaire were rigorously tested through a validation process involving three distinct participant groups (Study 2). This phase ensured the scale's reliability and validity across different demographics and contexts, consolidating its usefulness in diverse settings.

Finally, the validated Coping with Ecological Stress Scale was

applied in a broader investigation (Study 3) to analyze how individuals adapt to environmental stress, with particular attention to differences in eco-anxiety levels. This study also aimed to identify prevalent patterns of functioning, specifically pinpointing combinations of coping strategies that are frequently used together. Building on the work of Helm et al. (2022), who identified coping profiles using pre-existing measures, our approach extends their contribution by identifying patterns of co-occurring coping strategies from a newly developed scale specifically designed to capture the diversity of coping responses to ecological stressors.

This comprehensive approach not only enhances our understanding of coping with ecological stress mechanisms, but is also useful for tailoring interventions and support systems to foster more effective and sustainable coping strategies in the face of environmental challenges.

All studies were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

## 2. Study 1: Qualitative approach

In order to create and validate a Coping with Ecological Stress scale, item development was grounded in a prior qualitative study conducted in 2020 with French participants who reported experiencing high levels of environmental stress (Jalin, Sapin, et al., 2024). The aim of this preliminary study was twofold: (1) to explore the phenomenological manifestations of eco-anxiety, and (2) to identify the strategies participants used to regulate stress associated with the ecological crisis. The current article focuses exclusively on the second objective, which informed the generation of items for the CES scale. Findings related to the first objective have been reported elsewhere.

### 2.1. Method

#### 2.1.1. Participants

Interviews were conducted with 18 French adults (M = 34 years, range: 19–48; 6 men, 12 women) recruited from the general population via social media and environmental advocacy groups in a major western French city. Inclusion required self-identification as eco-anxious, coupled with significant distress or functional impairment linked to eco-anxiety. To evaluate emotional impact, participants reported the frequency of environment-related negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, sadness, anger, helplessness) on a 4-point Likert scale (Never to All the time) and their intensity on a 0–10 scale. Only respondents who experienced at least one emotion often or all the time, with an intensity >5/10, were included. This threshold ensured the sample comprised individuals for whom eco-anxiety was both frequent and clinically meaningful, aligning with the study's focus on coping strategies in affected populations.

#### 2.1.2. Procedure

Semi-structured research interviews in focus group format were conducted for 11 participants, and individually for the remaining eight. All materials, including questionnaires and the interview guide, were administered in French; English translations are provided in this article. The interview guide included four open-ended questions to encourage exploration of the phenomenon, including one on stress management, worded as follows: "How do you cope with eco-anxiety?" With participants' consent, all interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed via thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method involves identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data through a process of familiarization, coding, theme development, and refinement. The coding was performed independently by two researchers. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus, ensuring consistency in code application. Data collection was pursued until thematic saturation was reached, i.e., when additional interviews yielded no substantially new themes or codes relevant to coping with eco-anxiety, supporting the adequacy of the sample size for
the exploratory aims of this study.

Higher-order themes were constructed by grouping related codes into broader dimensions using a hierarchical framework. To systematically assess theme prevalence, we categorized each coping strategy's frequency based on participant endorsement rates: 'marginal' (<33% of participants), 'often observed' (33-66%), or 'highly prevalent' (>66%). This approach allowed us to identify not only dominant coping patterns but also their relative salience across the sample. A preliminary thematic comparison revealed no substantial differences between the two modes of data collection, allowing for the integration of all responses for item development purposes.

## 2.2. Results

Thematic analysis revealed ten distinct coping strategies for ecological stressors, each illustrated with a representative participant quotation:

- Self-blame: "I can't stand my own contradictions. I blame myself terribly when I take the car when I could have taken the bike." (highly prevalent)

- Problem-solving: "I tell myself that my talent lies in transmitting, accompanying and teaching, and I think I can make things evolve, person by person, in small groups, by accompanying them." (highly prevalent)

- Rumination: "I don't know about you, but for me, there's not a single day when I don't think about it. It's really constant, it's daily, it's always on my mind and going in all directions." (highly prevalent)

- Positive reappraisal: "To be able to imagine a different, positive world, in fact, and that feels good and really motivates energies." (often observed)

- Self-distraction: "When it's too stressful, I do something else. I read novels and books, watch films and look for leisure and entertainment." (often observed)

- Social support-seeking: "All our friends are more or less at the same level of ecological awareness as we are. And I think it's good for us." (often observed)

- Avoidance: "I try to cut myself off from a lot of information, precisely to preserve myself, not to inform myself too much, not to read too much and instead to be in action." (often observed)

- Meaning-seeking and spirituality: "I feel very privileged to be living at this time, too, because we're deconstructing and questioning everything, our social relationships, the place of women in society too ..."/"I take time to rest, to relax, to recharge my batteries, to meditate ..." (sometimes observed)

- Humor: "We need to talk nonsense about it." (marginal)

- Denial: "I'm not eco-panicked. I'm still doing lots of things I shouldn't be doing. As a result, I'm not anxious, but if I really were, if I were totally aware, then ..." (marginal)

## 2.3. Discussion of Study 1

The thematic analysis of interviews with individuals who self-identify as eco-anxious revealed ten coping strategies, many of which align with well-established coping mechanisms documented in the literature (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Endler & Parker, 1994; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). However, when compared to the eight coping strategies identified by Homburg et al. (2007), our analysis did not uncover strategies such as resignation and relativization. Interestingly, this absence echoes findings by Helm et al. (2022), where such strategies similarly failed to differentiate patterns of coping strategy use in their latent profile analysis - hinting at a broader pattern that merits further study. Notably, our sample consisted specifically of individuals reporting heightened eco-anxiety, a distinction that may set them apart from general population cohorts. These eco-anxious participants were notably less inclined to employ self-protective strategies such as denial

or the minimization of environmental threats, which are more commonly observed in broader population studies (Carver et al., 1989). Instead, they frequently acknowledged the denial they observed in others, suggesting a heightened awareness of and engagement with the realities of the ecological crisis. This divergence underscores the importance of considering the specific patterns of coping strategies among eco-anxious individuals when developing coping scales, as their coping strategies may differ significantly from those of the general public.

In the subsequent phase of developing the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale, the insights from this study were pivotal. While the findings from this thematic analysis formed the foundation for item development, we also integrated additional research, particularly concerning self-protective strategies, to ensure a comprehensive and enriched scale. This approach aims to create a tool that not only captures the coping strategies likely to co-occur among eco-anxious individuals but also considers the broader spectrum of coping mechanisms identified in the literature.

# 3. Study 2: development of an coping with ecological stress scale

Study 2 consisted of the development and psychometric validation of the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale. We describe below the steps involved in item selection and the psychometric validation of the scale.

## 3.1. Method

### 3.1.1. Participants

Three distinct groups of participants were recruited to validate the scale.

- The first group, obtained by distributing an online questionnaire via social networks, included 218 participants, 72.5% of whom were women (N = 158) and 27.5% men (N = 60). The average age was 40.1 years (SD = 20.2). It was used to check item sensitivity.

- The second group, obtained in the same way, included 236 participants, 64.6% of whom were women (N = 153) and 35.3% men (N = 83), with an average age of 38.5 years (SD = 15.5). It was mobilized to perform an exploratory factor analysis on the remaining items.

- The third group was recruited from participants in awareness-raising workshops on the ecological crisis held in companies, schools or communities, on a voluntary basis (N = 182), supplemented by recruitment on the Prolific platform (N = 60). Independent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between these two sub-samples in terms of coping strategy levels (all ps > .05), supporting their combination for subsequent analyses. The final sample included a total of 242 participants, 45.9% of whom were men (N = 111) and 54.1% women (N = 131), with an average age of 30.7 (SD = 10.2). The data collected were used to carry out a confirmatory factor analysis and to verify the overall psychometric quality of the questionnaire.

This gender imbalance likely stems from our recruitment strategy (primarily online surveys) and aligns with established trends showing that women are generally more likely to participate in psychological research (Porter & Whitcomb, 2005).

### 3.1.2. Material

#### 3.1.2.1. Item development.
Drawing on Study 1's qualitative data, we developed an initial pool of 55 items representing ten coping strategies, each modeled as a reflective latent construct. To anchor item development in ecological validity, we first quantified the prevalence of each strategy in participants' narratives, classifying them into four tiers:
highly prevalent, often observed, sometimes observed, or marginal. Notably, strategies like rumination, problem-solving, and self-blame emerged as highly prevalent, whereas self-protective strategies (e.g., denial, minimization, disengagement) were marginal or entirely absent, a pattern potentially attributable to our recruitment criteria (self-identified eco-anxious individuals reporting substantial distress), who may inherently employ fewer avoidant mechanisms. To ensure

comprehensive coverage of the coping spectrum, we supplemented the item pool with 17 additional items derived from literature on self-protective strategies (Cagle & Herndl, 2019; Gifford, 2011; Hadarics, 2021; Wullenkord & Reese, 2021), encompassing denial, minimization, rationalization, avoidance, and disengagement. This approach guarantees that the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale captures both distress-oriented and self-protective responses to ecological stress.

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Exploratory factor analysis.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Items</th><th colspan="10">Factor loadings</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>1. Self-blame</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. I blame myself for not doing more for the climate</td><td>.919</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. I feel ashamed or guilty because I'm not doing enough for the climate</td><td>.733</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. I tell myself that I could devote more energy to making an effort for the climate</td><td>.704</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>2. Problem-solving</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. I give thought to how I can improve my consumption patterns to limit my impact on the climate</td><td>.767</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. I make my family and friends more aware about responsible consumption</td><td>.700</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. I try to imagine what a more autonomous life could be at my scale</td><td>.480</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>3. Positive reappraisal</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. I remain hopeful that humans can evolve and adapt to mitigate climate change</td><td>.686</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. I believe that scientific progress will save us from climate change</td><td>.678</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. I remain optimistic and look forward to a peaceful future</td><td>.664</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>4. Rumination</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. I feel stressed or worried</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.720</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. I brood, I have dark thoughts</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.628</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12. I feel paralyzed and don't know what to do</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.527</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>5. Humor</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. I use humor to lighten the situation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.887</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14. I make jokes about the subject because it's better to laugh than to cry</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.879</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>6. Self-distraction</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. I prefer to take my mind off things by distracting myself (watching a series, shopping, going to the movies ...)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.727</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. I turn to work or going out to take my mind off things</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.684</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. I try to relax by doing enjoyable activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.627</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>7. Social support-seeking</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18. I arrange to spend time with people who share my feelings</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.832</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19. I talk to people who understand my worries because it calms me down</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.585</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20. I seek understanding and support from others</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.571</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>8. Denial</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21. I tell myself that the consequences of climate change won't really affect me in my everyday life</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.664</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22. I tell myself about climate change: "It's not really real"</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.604</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23. I'm feeling pretty relaxed, not really interested</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.590</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>9. Meaning-seeking and spirituality</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24. I meditate or take time to reflect on myself or on life</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.827</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25. I find comfort in personal development or spirituality</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.689</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>10. Avoidance</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>26. I tend to suppress my thoughts on this subject because I feel too powerless</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.600</td></tr><tr><td>27. For self-preservation, I avoid reading or watching news related to climate change</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.485</td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach's alpha</td><td>.84</td><td>.75</td><td>.78</td><td>.72</td><td>.88</td><td>.72</td><td>.86</td><td>.58</td><td>.62</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>% of variance</td><td>8.13</td><td>6.74</td><td>6.43</td><td>6.43</td><td>6.32</td><td>6.21</td><td>5.99</td><td>5.59</td><td>5.13</td><td>3.63</td></tr><tr><td>% of cumulative variance</td><td>8.13</td><td>14.87</td><td>21.30</td><td>27.73</td><td>34.04</td><td>40.26</td><td>46.25</td><td>51.83</td><td>56.97</td><td>60.59</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: French version of the items 1. Je m'en veux de ne pas en faire plus pour le climat 2. Je ressens de la honte ou de la culpabilité car je ne fais pas assez d'efforts pour le climat 3. Je me dis que je pourrais consacrer plus d'énergie à faire des efforts pour le climat 4. Je réfléchis à la manière d'améliorer mes modes de consommation pour limiter mon impact climatique 5. Je sensibilise mes proches an une consommation plus responsable 6. J'essaie d'imaginer ce que pourrait être une vie plus autonome à mon niveau 7. Je garde espoir en la capacité des humains d'évoluer et de s'adapter pour limiter le changement climatique 8. Je crois aux progrès scientifiques qui nous sauveront du changement climatique 9. Je reste optimiste et je me projette dans un avenir serein. 10. Je me sens stressé.e ou inquiet.e. 11. Je rumine, j'ai des idées noires 12. Je me sens paralysé.e et je ne sais pas quoi faire 13. Je fais de l'humour sur le sujet pour dédramatiser la situation 14. Je fais des blagues sur le sujet car il vaut mieux en rire qu'en pleurer 15. Je préfère me changer les idées en me distraayant (visionnage de série, shopping, cinéma ...) 16. Je me tourne vers le travail ou les sorties pour me changer les idées 17. J'essaie de me détendre en faisant des activités agréables 18. Je m'arrange pour passer du temps avec des personnes qui partagent mon ressentis 19. Je parle à des gens qui comprennent mes inquiétudes car cela m'apaise 20. Je recherche la compréhension et le soutien chez d'autres 21. Je me dis que les conséquences du changement climatique ne me toucheront pas vraiment dans ma vie de tous les jours 22. Je me dis à moi-même concernant l'évolution du climat: « ce n'est pas vraiment réel » 23. Je me sens plutôt détendu.e, tout cela ne m'intéresse pas vraiment 24. Je médite ou je prends du temps pour réfléchir sur moi ou sur la vie 25. Je trouve du réconfort dans le développement personnel ou la spiritualité 26. J'ai tendance à refouler mes pensées sur ce sujet car je me sens trop impuissant.e 27. Pour me préserver, j'évite de lire ou regarder les informations ayant un rapport avec le changement climatique.
**3.1.2.2. Coping scale.** To ensure the convergent validity of the scale, the Brief COPE was used (Carver, 1997). It is a widely used self-report questionnaire designed to assess coping strategies that individuals use in response to stress. The Brief COPE consists of 28 items that measure 14 different coping strategies, with two items per scale. Participants rate each item on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = "I haven't been doing this at all" to 4 = "I've been doing this a lot"). We used the French version of the Brief COPE (Muller & Spitz, 2003).

### 3.1.3. Analysis

The 55 items designed in the previous stage were submitted to the first group of participants to check their sensitivity (mean, standard deviation, response distribution, skewness and kurtosis) and eliminate those that were unsatisfactory. In the second phase, corresponding to the second group of participants, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out using the Varimax rotation method. Given that coping strategies can be relatively independent of each other, this rotation method was deemed the most appropriate for this analysis (Kaiser, 1958). Finally, to confirm the factor structure obtained by the AFE, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the third group of participants.

## 3.2. Results

### 3.2.1. Sensitivity

Items with insufficient response variability were removed. However, some items were designed to measure specific attitudes, such as denial or disengagement, which are not commonly shared or accepted, not least because of social desirability (e.g., the item "I feel rather relaxed, I'm not really interested in all this"). As a result, the distributions of responses to these items were naturally asymmetrical. It was nevertheless decided to retain them, as they were crucial for identifying and understanding the subgroup of respondents with these attitudes. Following the first phase of sensitivity analysis, 15 of the 55 items were removed from the list.

### 3.2.2. Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the remaining 40 items. Factor extraction criteria included examination of eigenvalues greater than 1 and visual inspection of the scree plot. Items with factor loadings of below .4 were considered to make an insufficient contribution and were also removed. Finally, a factorial solution revealed clear, interpretable factors corresponding to different dimensions of coping. A ten-factor structure emerged, comprising 28 items (see Table 1).

The ten factors identified in the factor analysis are shown in Table 2. They correspond to those identified in the qualitative analysis. Factor

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Convergent validity of subscales.</caption><thead><tr><th>CES subscales</th><th>Brief COPE subscales</th><th>Correlation (Bravais Pearson)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Self-blame</td><td>Self-blame</td><td>.270***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Problem-solving</td><td>Active coping</td><td>.192**</td></tr><tr><td>Planning</td><td>.191**</td></tr><tr><td>Positive reappraisal</td><td>Positive reappraisal</td><td>.289***</td></tr><tr><td>Rumination</td><td>Venting</td><td>.269***</td></tr><tr><td>Humor</td><td>Humor</td><td>.387***</td></tr><tr><td>Self-distraction</td><td>Self-distraction</td><td>.322***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Social support-seeking</td><td>Using emotional support</td><td>.430***</td></tr><tr><td>Using instrumental support</td><td>.327***</td></tr><tr><td>Denial</td><td>Denial</td><td>.191**</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning-seeking and spirituality</td><td>Religion</td><td>.410***</td></tr><tr><td>Avoidance</td><td>Behavioral disengagement</td><td>.097</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: *.01<p < .05; **.01<p < .001; ***p < .001.

analysis revealed that 12 items, representing disengagement, denial, rationalization, and minimization strategies, clustered into a single factor. This factor largely corresponded to "denial", with only three items remaining distinct from this grouping. The factor structure revealed explains 60.59 % of the cumulative variance. The internal consistency of the last three subscales is low (Cronbach's alphas around .60), but this can be explained by the small number of items and the need to consider different facets of the phenomenon in very few items. It was therefore decided to keep them as they were.

### 3.2.3. Confirmatory factor analysis

The CFA, performed on the third group of participants, tested the factor structure highlighted in the previous phase. Model fit indices were acceptable to good, with a CFI of .919, a TLI of .898 and an RMSEA of .055 (90 % CI [.047, .064]).

### 3.2.4. Convergent validity

Convergent validity was assessed with reference to the Brief COPE subscales corresponding to those of the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale. The Brief COPE was completed by participants in the third phase of data collection in parallel with the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale questionnaire (Table 2).

All the subscales of the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale are weakly to moderately correlated with the corresponding subscales of the Brief COPE, with the exception of the "avoidance" subscale (r = .097).

## 3.3. Discussion of Study 2

The factor analysis validated the ten-factor structure, encompassing self-blame, problem-solving, positive reappraisal, rumination, humor, self-distraction, seeking social support, meaning-seeking and spirituality, denial, and avoidance. Notably, all the self-protective strategies - except for avoidance - clustered into a single factor. These strategies represent psychological mechanisms designed to mitigate the anxiety or cognitive dissonance that arises in response to a perceived threat, such as the ecological crisis (Reser & Swim, 2011). People may reject or downplay the threat to protect themselves from the anxiety that acknowledging it could trigger (Norgaard, 2011). Specifically, minimization downplays the significance of the threat, relativization places the threat in a broader, less alarming context, rationalization provides seemingly logical justifications for actions or beliefs, and disengagement involves emotionally or cognitively distancing oneself from the situation (Snyder, 1999; Wullenkord & Reese, 2021). The convergence of these strategies into one factor suggests that participants may employ them in an integrated manner, collectively functioning as a broader denial mechanism to cope with the emotional and cognitive challenges posed by the ecological crisis.

The correlations observed between the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale subscales and the Brief COPE further support the validity of our scale, with all subscales showing positive correlations, except for avoidance. This exception is likely due to the nuanced difference between the constructs measured: while our avoidance subscale focuses on cognitive avoidance of climate-related thoughts, the Brief COPE's avoidance subscale addresses behavioral disengagement, such as giving up on problem-solving efforts (Carver, 1997). This distinction highlights our scale's unique capacity to assess the cognitive dimensions of coping with ecological stressors, dimensions that general coping measures like the Brief COPE may not adequately capture.

In this study, problem-solving coping was operationalized as cognitive and interpersonal strategies (e.g., reflecting on personal behaviors or encouraging others to adopt pro-environmental actions). While these strategies reflect efforts to address ecological stressors, they primarily represent intentional engagement rather than direct environmental action. This distinction highlights that such coping mechanisms may serve as precursors to, but are not synonymous with, actual pro-environmental behaviors, which likely require separate assessment to capture
behavioral outcomes.

In Study 3, we applied the validated scale to examine: (1) relationships between eco-anxiety and coping strategies, and (2) potential interconnections among different ecological stressor coping strategies. This approach not only enhances our understanding of how individuals manage eco-anxiety but also offers a comprehensive tool for future research and interventions aimed at supporting those struggling with the psychological impacts of the ecological crisis.

## 4. Study 3 - An analysis of the links between eco-anxiety and coping strategies

The first aim of this third study is to investigate how people cope with environmental stress depending on their level of eco-anxiety. As developed in the introductory section, the stress induced by the ecological crisis is relatively specific due to the perceived high level of uncontrollability of climate change. Nevertheless, in view of the existing literature on the association between anxiety and coping strategies (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Zeidner & Endler, 1995), we can hypothesize the following: the most eco-anxious individuals will be more likely than others to use strategies aimed at rumination (1), self-blame (2), seeking social support (3) and problem-solving (4), as well as strategies aimed at reducing emotional levels, such as avoidance (5), self-distraction (6) and meaning-seeking and spirituality (7). Conversely, the least eco-anxious individuals will make greater use of denial (8) and positive reappraisal (9) strategies.

The second aim of Study 3 is to assess the degree to which certain coping strategies tend to be used in combination in the face of environmental stress. To investigate this question, a network analysis with cluster analyses (Newman & Girvan, 2004) was performed to visualize and explore the links between eco-anxiety and coping strategies. In light of previous research on coping strategy interrelations (Aldao et al., 2010; Carver et al., 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Park, 2010), in particular the distinction between active and passive coping strategies, we expect stronger associations between active strategies such as problem-solving, social support-seeking and meaning-seeking coping (10), which often combine to overcome stress and make sense of difficult experiences. These strategies are generally considered adaptive and can reinforce each other. We also expect to see a clustering between passive strategies such as rumination, self-blame, denial, avoidance, positive reappraisal and self-distraction strategies (11).

### 4.1. Method

#### 4.1.1. Participants

This study was conducted on a large proportion of the third group of participants in Study 2 (N = 224). Its size is slightly reduced, as 17 participants who did not complete the eco-anxiety questionnaire correctly were withdrawn. It includes 56.2 % women (N = 126) and 43.75 % men (N = 98). The mean age was 32 years (SD = 13.6).

#### 4.1.2. Material

To carry out this study, in addition to the Coping with Environmental Stress Scale, participants fulfilled the Eco-Anxiety Measurement Scale (EMEA), which includes three subscales respectively measuring emotional manifestations (e.g. “I feel invaded by thoughts of the effects of climate change”), relational impacts (e.g. “in my circle, those who minimize the impacts of climate change make me deeply angry”) and obsession with ecology (e.g. “climate change is one of my main topics of conversation”) (Jalin et al., 2023).

#### 4.1.3. Statistical analysis

To investigate the association between eco-anxiety and coping with ecological stressors, three distinct methods were used:

- Firstly, the group of participants was separated into two subgroups according to the Z-value of the eco-anxiety score, with weakly eco-anxious people (Z < 0; N = 101) in one subgroup and more strongly eco-anxious people (Z ≥ 0; N = 126) in the other. Then, the scores of the ten subscales of the two subgroups were compared by Student's t-tests.

- Secondly, to explore the associations between eco-anxiety and coping strategies, we conducted a network analysis using the EBIC-glasso method (Extended Bayesian Information Criterion Graphical Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator). This approach estimates partial correlations between variables while applying a regularization penalty to simplify the network structure and highlight the most robust links (Costantini et al., 2015; Friedman et al., 2008). The analysis, run in R (packages bootnet and qgraph), also provided insights into node centrality and expected influence, allowing identification of the most interconnected coping strategies. To evaluate the reliability of the network, we performed a bootstrap analysis, generating resampled datasets from our initial sample (N = 224) to estimate confidence intervals for edge weights and compute the Bootstrap Edge Stability Index (Johnson, 2001). While our sample (N = 224) approaches the recommended threshold of 250 participants for robust network estimation (Epskamp et al., 2018), it remains marginally below this benchmark, which may contribute to the wider confidence intervals observed in our bootstrap analysis. Nonetheless, the network structure provides meaningful preliminary insights into the interplay between eco-anxiety and coping strategies.

- Thirdly, a network was created using only the subscale scores of the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale, without eco-anxiety, with the aim of performing a cluster analysis. The Spinglass method was used, as it is particularly advantageous due to its robustness against noise and its ability to detect complex hierarchical structures. In addition, it offers flexibility thanks to its adjustable parameters, enabling the level of granularity of the communities detected to be adapted to the specific needs of the analysis (Newman & Girvan, 2004). The network analysis was performed using R (package igraph).

### 4.2. Results

#### 4.2.1. Comparison of coping scores by level of eco-anxiety

Mean comparisons between the two groups are shown in Table 3. There is a significant difference between most participants' coping subscale scores depending on their level of eco-anxiety. The most eco-anxious individuals have significantly higher scores with large effect sizes for the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale subscales of self-blame, *t* (225) = -8.235, *p* < .001, problem-solving, *t*(225) = -9.376, *p* < .001, rumination, *t*(225) = -10.332, *p* < .001, social support-seeking, *t*(224) = -9.650, *p* < .001, and avoidance, *t*(225) = -5.607, *p* < .001, and with a

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Comparison of coping scores according to eco-anxiety level (Student's t-tests).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Coping with Ecological Stress subscales</th><th colspan="2">Low eco-anxiety (Z &lt; 0)</th><th colspan="2">High eco-anxiety (Z ≥ 0)</th><th rowspan="2">Mean difference</th><th rowspan="2">Effect size</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Self-blame</td><td>6.06</td><td>2.47</td><td>8.92</td><td>2.71</td><td>-2.86***</td><td>-1.100</td></tr><tr><td>Problem-solving</td><td>7.31</td><td>2.56</td><td>10.35</td><td>2.32</td><td>-3.04***</td><td>-1.252</td></tr><tr><td>Positive reappraisal</td><td>9.40</td><td>2.86</td><td>7.68</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.71***</td><td>.617</td></tr><tr><td>Rumination</td><td>4.18</td><td>1.65</td><td>7.17</td><td>2.51</td><td>-2.10***</td><td>-1.380</td></tr><tr><td>Humor</td><td>4.01</td><td>2.01</td><td>4.16</td><td>2.19</td><td>-.15</td><td>-.070</td></tr><tr><td>Self-distraction</td><td>7.31</td><td>3.15</td><td>10.35</td><td>2.85</td><td>-1.59***</td><td>-.533</td></tr><tr><td>Social support-seeking</td><td>9.4</td><td>2.20</td><td>7.68</td><td>2.85</td><td>-3.34***</td><td>-1.292</td></tr><tr><td>Denial</td><td>4.81</td><td>2.02</td><td>4.22</td><td>2.07</td><td>.59*</td><td>.287</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning-seeking and spirituality</td><td>3.74</td><td>2.00</td><td>4.87</td><td>2.11</td><td>-1.12***</td><td>-.545</td></tr><tr><td>Avoidance</td><td>3.31</td><td>1.61</td><td>4.74</td><td>2.12</td><td>-1.43***</td><td>-.749</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. *p* < .05, **p* < .01, ***p* < .001.
medium effect size for self-distraction, t(225) = -3.988, *p* < .001, and meaning-seeking and spirituality, t(224) = -4.071, *p* < .001. Conversely, the most eco-anxious people used significantly fewer coping strategies of positive reappraisal, t(225) = 4.622, *p* < .001, with a medium to large effect size (d = .62), and denial, t(225) = 2.152, *p* = .032, with a small effect size (d = .29). There was no significant difference between the means of the two subgroups for humor, t(224) = -.526, *p* = .60.

### 4.2.2. Network analysis of the correlation between eco-anxiety and coping with ecological stress

The network and centrality graph are shown in Fig. 1. Bootstrap analysis reveals relatively wide confidence intervals, probably due to the somewhat insufficient sample size. This high variability of estimates should therefore lead to caution in interpreting the results that follow. Network analysis shows a strong association between eco-anxiety and coping strategies focused on self-blame ($r_{partial} = .25$), rumination ($r_{partial} = .34$), problem-solving ($r_{partial} = .35$) and social support-seeking ($r_{partial} = .26$). Avoidance strategies are positively associated with self-blame ($r_{partial} = .20$), rumination ($r_{partial} = .25$) and self-distraction ($r_{partial} = .28$). Meaning-seeking is associated with problem-solving ($r_{partial} = .17$) and social support-seeking ($r_{partial} = .17$). Rumination is negatively correlated with positive reappraisal ($r_{partial} = -.17$) and social support-seeking ($r_{partial} = .14$). Denial is not directly correlated with eco-anxiety, but it is negatively correlated with problem-solving ($r_{partial} = -.1$), and positively correlated with avoidance ($r_{partial} = .14$), particularly with positive reappraisal ($r_{partial} = .21$). Finally, problem-solving is not significantly correlated with either avoidance or

rumination. In this network, the most influential factor in terms of centrality is very clearly eco-anxiety, which is linked to its strategic position (high betweenness and closeness) as well as its high degree of direct connections with other factors.

### 4.2.3. Clustering of coping strategies

The network and its clusters are shown in Fig. 2. This network obtains a modularity index of .237, which shows that there is some organization of nodes into denser clusters compared to a random distribution of links, but without a strong community structure. The results therefore reveal trends rather than formal groupings. Three subgroups of strategies emerge: Cluster 1 is built around strategies of rumination, self-blame and avoidance; Cluster 2 around strategies of meaning-seeking, problem-solving, social support-seeking and self-distraction; finally, Cluster 3 is built around strategies of positive reappraisal, denial and, to a lesser extent, humor. In this network, rumination has the most strength (corresponding to the strength of centrality and the importance of nodes in terms of weighted connections), with social support-seeking coming in second.

## 4.3. Discussion of Study 3

The analyses conducted in Study 3 reveal distinct patterns of coping strategies between individuals with varying levels of eco-anxiety. Individuals with higher levels of eco-anxiety are more likely to express negative emotions in response to environmental stress (1) and exhibit heightened self-blame for not doing enough to address the climate crisis (2). They also tend to seek social support, particularly from those who

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Network analysis-eco-anxiety and environmental coping strategies (note:dotted edges correspond to negative partial correlations).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Cluster analysis of environmental coping strategies Note:dotted edges correspond to negative partial correlations.</figcaption></figure>
can empathize with and understand their concerns (3). Notably, the most eco-anxious individuals adopt problem-solving strategies to a significantly greater extent than their less eco-anxious counterparts (4). Additionally, these individuals employ strategies such as avoidance (5), self-distraction (6), and meaning-seeking (7) as mechanisms to emotionally protect themselves from the distress associated with eco-anxiety. Conversely, those with lower levels of eco-anxiety are more likely to engage in denial (8), albeit with a small effect size, and rely more heavily on positive reappraisal (9), which involves maintaining hope for the future through belief in scientific advancements or humanity's capacity to adapt.

The network and cluster analyses further elucidate the relationships between these coping strategies and eco-anxiety. These results suggest three primary clusters of coping strategies for managing environmental stress: the first cluster, centered around rumination, self-blame, and avoidance; the second cluster, comprising meaning-seeking, problem-solving, social support-seeking, and self-distraction; and the third cluster, consisting of denial, positive reappraisal, and humor. Hypotheses (10) and (11) are therefore only partially validated, as a slightly different pattern emerges in the cluster analysis, with distraction-seeking, a passive strategy, aggregating with active strategies, and passive strategies differentiating into two distinct subgroups.

## 5. General discussion

The three studies presented in this article aimed to develop a robust scale for measuring environmentally-related coping and to explore the intricate relationships between these coping strategies and levels of eco-anxiety. The first two studies successfully identified ten distinct dimensions of coping, leading to the development of a reliable psychometric scale. This scale captures a broad spectrum of coping strategies - self-blame, problem-solving, positive reappraisal, rumination, humor, self-distraction, social support-seeking, denial, meaning-seeking and spirituality, and avoidance - offering a valuable tool for future quantitative research into the factors that influence individuals' responses to environmental stress.

Study 3 employed this newly developed tool to explore in greater detail the associations between eco-anxiety and these coping strategies. The findings revealed that individuals with higher levels of eco-anxiety are more likely to engage in coping strategies such as self-blame, problem-solving, meaning-seeking, rumination, social support-seeking, and avoidance. Conversely, those with lower levels of eco-anxiety tend to rely more on denial and positive reappraisal. These results provide valuable insights into the psychological mechanisms that underlie eco-anxiety, highlighting the coping strategies that are most closely associated with heightened levels of environmental stress.

Network and cluster analyses further clarified the interrelationships between these coping strategies. Three distinct clusters emerged:

- The first cluster includes the strategies for rumination, self-blame and avoidance. Rumination is often a first reaction to stress and can create a cycle in which the individual feels overwhelmed, leading to avoidance as a means of reducing emotional levels (John & Gross, 2007). People affected by this association may experience and express more strongly negative emotions associated with the ecological crisis, leading them to seek to preserve themselves by repressing cognitions or avoiding information relating to these subjects. Furthermore, network analysis shows that neither emotional expression nor avoidance are associated with problem-solving strategies. Several hypotheses may explain this result. Firstly, when emotional expression reaches significant levels, it could generate a form of paralysis preventing the person from engaging in action (Clayton, 2020). Secondly, reacting to stress with avoidance could bring immediate relief, reinforcing the use of this strategy and preventing acceptance of the reality of the ecological crisis (see for example Barlow, 2004). In this context, it would become improbable

or only symbolic to take action, so as to limit self-blame. Finally, inaction and avoidance could reinforce feelings of powerlessness and ineffectiveness in the face of the threat, and contribute to a gradual rise in anxiety levels, generating a vicious circle. The third coping strategy in this group, self-blame, is positively associated with problem-solving. We can speculate that when people in this strategy group take action, it is mainly to reduce their level of guilt and/or shame. It is also possible, though the observed links are only correlative, that when people do not act, they feel the guilt more strongly and resort more to avoidance to protect themselves from it. Finally, self-blame and avoidance strategies are only weakly associated with the seeking of social support. It may be that people who feel ashamed or guilty for not acting avoid discussions about the environment; in so doing, they further isolate themselves, maintaining a vicious circle that keeps them in this pattern.

- The second cluster combines problem-solving, meaning-seeking, social support-seeking and self-distraction coping. People in this group express less worry and stress than those in the first modality, and are more likely to engage in action, whether through support-seeking, self-distraction or environmental engagement. In this stress management modality, behavioral engagement is likely to trigger a virtuous circle in people, by raising their self-esteem and sense of control over the situation, which may then fuel hope and optimism (Folkman, 2008). Furthermore, in this hypothesis, action could reduce the tendency to self-blame, and it would become easier, socially speaking, to become closer to other people with the same values, and probably also committed to action in favor of the environment. The combination of commitment to action and social valorization would then have a probable reinforcing effect, a proposition which has indeed been made in other research studies (Harth et al., 2013; Hartmann et al., 2017). Given these results, it seems likely that the level of well-being of people in this modality is higher than that of people in the previous modality, but further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

- Finally, the third cluster includes strategies of denial, positive reappraisal and humor. In this stress management modality, people do not accept the reality of the ecological crisis, as it is potentially too serious and requires too many changes that are difficult to initiate, and tend to take refuge in denial (Weintrobe, 2012). To reduce the dissonance associated with this position, they may be led to minimize the seriousness of the crisis by re-evaluating it positively. This positive reappraisal strategy can be a necessary form of coping when the stressor cannot be removed or resolved immediately, as is the case with the ecological crisis (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Nevertheless, the hope stemming from this optimism is too often based on the idea that the situation will take care of itself, which limits behavioral commitment to the environment (Cohen, 2013; Ojala, 2012; Wullenkord & Reese, 2021). Indeed, the results of the present study show that there is no association between positive reappraisal and problem-solving and a negative association between denial and problem-solving. It could be speculated that positive reappraisal, i.e., the belief that humans will evolve or that science will save the planet, is a form of denial in the sense that it is akin to an excessive form of optimism, keeping people inactive. Another form of optimism, described by Ojala (2012), consists in seeking hope in a sense of searching for meaning. This is an active coping strategy in the sense that it involves working on oneself, on one's vision of the world. This form of hope might be more constructive, as it is based on a willingness to adapt to the threat, and could conversely facilitate action by offering momentary emotional respite from the harsh reality of the crisis.

These findings show some thematic similarities with those of Helm et al. (2022), who, using a person-centered approach, identified two distinct profiles of individuals: adaptive approach coping and maladaptive avoidance coping. These profiles represent groups of people
sharing similar patterns of coping strategy use. In contrast, our analysis, based on a variable-centered approach, identified three schemes of coping strategy co-occurrence - that is, tendencies for certain strategies to be used together - without classifying individuals into discrete types. Although these methods rely on different assumptions and are therefore not directly comparable, considering the results side-by-side is informative, as both studies address how coping strategies tend to cluster in the context of ecological stress.

Helm et al.'s adaptive approach coping profile, characterized by problem-solving and emotional expression, shares thematic similarities with our third scheme, which combines action-oriented strategies with a diversification of coping mechanisms. Their maladaptive avoidance coping profile, focused on pleasure-seeking and denial of guilt, overlaps partly with our second scheme involving denial and positive reappraisal, although our data also revealed an association with humor. A notable difference lies in our first scheme, centered on rumination, self-blame, and avoidance, which suggests a specific emotional vulnerability not captured in Helm et al.'s two-profile structure.

Building on Pihkala's (2022) process model of eco-anxiety, these three schemes may be understood not only as patterns of co-occurring coping strategies but also as potential stages in the emotional regulation process. Before the onset of eco-anxiety, individuals might preferentially rely on strategies resembling our second scheme (denial and positive reappraisal), which can serve as psychological buffers against distress. At the emergence of eco-anxiety, they may shift toward a scheme dominated by rumination and self-blame (first scheme), reflecting a phase of heightened emotional vulnerability. As eco-anxiety becomes more regulated and stabilized, some individuals might transition toward the third scheme, characterized by proactive engagement, diversified coping, and more effective strategies. From this perspective, the persistence of pathological eco-anxiety could be associated with difficulties in moving beyond the rumination/self-blame scheme, which may hinder the adoption of more diversified coping patterns.

It is likely that the use of these different coping strategies is more complex than this staged model suggests, as individuals may flexibly combine strategies depending on context and personal resources. It is highly probable, for example, that people who primarily use action-oriented strategies will also occasionally resort to denial, avoidance, or self-distraction, and that those who rely on denial may at times feel anxious or guilty, prompting minor behavioral adjustments. Nevertheless, these results highlight the importance of action-oriented intentionality as a trigger for a virtuous cycle addressing both the roots of the ecological crisis and the emotional burden it creates. They also underscore the key role of social support-seeking as a catalyst for converting negative emotions into action readiness (Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019), consistent with research showing that the absence of support fosters avoidance coping, whereas its presence encourages problem-focused coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Taylor & Stanton, 2007).

In light of these results, the present study cannot determine whether the coping schemes identified are adaptive or maladaptive. Categorising passive strategies as inherently maladaptive or active strategies as inherently adaptive would be reductive. As discussed earlier, the adaptiveness of a coping strategy depends on both the individual's well-being and their engagement with environmental issues (Clayton, 2020), and neither of these outcomes was measured here. The findings instead highlight the contextual nature of coping, where a given strategy may be beneficial in one domain yet less so in another. For example, certain forms of environmental activism may advance ecological objectives while imposing personal psychological costs. Future research should examine these dynamics by assessing the associations between coping schemes, well-being indicators, and environmental behaviour.

Mah et al. (2020) suggest, for example, that one way of promoting well-being while fostering action would be to encourage passive strategies such as positive reappraisal, avoidance or self-distraction in relation to the more uncontrollable global aspects of the ecological crisis, and conversely, encourage active responses, and thus

environmental engagement, with regard to the more local issues over which the individual may feel some power to act. For example, it might be suggested that we avoid reading general news about worsening climate change in the press, while encouraging investment in more local initiatives to encourage cycling or local consumption.

# 6. Limitations and future research

Despite the contributions of these studies, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, while the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale developed in this research is comprehensive, it cannot capture the full complexity of coping mechanisms with only a limited number of items. The scale prioritizes coping strategies that were both frequently reported in our qualitative study and well-documented in the literature. While this approach enhances generalizability across diverse populations and settings, it necessarily excludes more culturally or contextually specific strategies (Helm et al., 2018; Homburg et al., 2007; Mah et al., 2020; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Reser & Swim, 2011). Future research should investigate how such strategies might be incorporated - either as supplementary modules or through culturally adapted versions - and assess the scale's validity across different cultural contexts. Additionally, certain self-protective strategies (e.g., denial) may exhibit nuanced manifestations that current scale items do not fully capture (for a discussion on the subject, see Wulenkord & Reese, 2021).

Second, the influence of cultural contexts on coping strategies is significant, and the findings from these studies, which were conducted in France, may not be generalizable to other countries or cultures (Pedersen et al., 1996). Moreover, as the Coping with Ecological Stress scale was originally developed and validated in French, its English version has not yet undergone full cross-cultural adaptation or psychometric testing. Future research should both include more diverse and geographically varied samples and test the scale's validity in different languages and cultural contexts. Additionally, the impact of specific environmental stressors may differ depending on geographical context, suggesting the need for comparative studies that assess whether populations facing acute versus chronic environmental threats adopt distinct coping strategies.

Third, although the cluster analysis in Study 3 offers valuable insights into typical strategy combinations, the resulting typology should be viewed as provisional rather than definitive. Its primary utility lies in structuring the observed diversity of coping responses and generating hypotheses for future research. Further studies employing larger, more diverse samples will be essential to verify the replicability of these clusters and advance our understanding of coping patterns specific to ecological stress.

Finally, some coping strategies are likely to operate in a more automatic way that could be unconscious, which the current self-report methodology may not fully capture. Complementary research using implicit measures could provide a deeper understanding of these unconscious coping mechanisms and how they contribute to individuals' overall coping strategies.

# 7. Conclusion

The findings from these studies contribute significantly to our understanding of how individuals cope with environmental stress and the role of eco-anxiety in shaping these coping strategies. The development of the Coping with Ecological Stress Scale offers a valuable tool for future research, enabling a more nuanced exploration of the psychological responses to the ecological crisis. The identification of pivotal coping strategies, such as social support-seeking and rumination, highlights potential targets for interventions aimed at promoting adaptive coping and mitigating the negative effects of eco-anxiety. Further research is needed to validate these findings and to explore the complex interplay between different coping strategies, cultural contexts, and environmental stressors. By advancing our understanding in these areas,
we can better support individuals in managing the psychological impacts of the ecological crisis, fostering both personal well-being and constructive engagement with environmental issues.

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used ChatGPT (OpenAI) in order to improve the clarity of English phrasing and to correct spelling. After using this tool, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Hélène Jalin:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Arnaud Sapin:** Formal analysis, review and editing. **Anne Congard:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Conceptualization. **Abdel Halim Boudoukha:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision.

## Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by a French Ethics Committee for Non-Interventional Research (n°07042022) and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

## Funding

This research did not receive any specific grand from funding agencies in the commercial or non profit sectors.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Ecole Doctorale Education, Cognition, Langages, Interactions, Health at Nantes University.

## Data availability

Data can be accessed through the following link: https://osf.io/5kurz/?view_only=4132da610e264b7ba7b989dde07535e0.

## References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. *Clinical Psychology Review, 30*(2), 217-237.

Ayers, T., Sandler, I., Bernzweig, J., Harrison, R., Wampler, T., & Lustig, J. (1989). *Handbook for the content analysis of children's coping responses. Tempe (AZ): Program for prevention research*. Arizona State University.

Barlow, D. H. (2004). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. In *Paperback* (2. ed.). Guilford Press.

Baudon, P., & Jachens, L. (2021). A scoping review of interventions for the treatment of eco-anxiety. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18*(18), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189636. Article.

Ben-Zur, H. (2009). Coping styles and affect. *International Journal of Stress Management, 16*(2), 87.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3*(2), 77-101.

Cagle, L. E., & Herndl, C. (2019). Shades of denialism: Discovering possibilities for a more nuanced deliberation about climate change in online discussion forums. *Communication Design Quarterly, 7*(1), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3331558.3331561

Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P. W., Trisos, C., Romero, J., Aldunce, P., Barrett, K., Blanco, G., Cheung, W. W. L., Connors, S., Denton, F., Diongue-Niang, A., Dodman, D., Garschagen, M., Geden, O., Hayward, B., Jones, C., ... Péan, C. (2023). IPCC, 2023: Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. In H. Lee, &

J. Romero (Eds.), *Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [core writing team]*. Geneva, Switzerland: (First). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol' too long: Consider the brief cope. *International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4*(1), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66*(1), 184.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56*(2), 267.

Clayton, S. (2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. *Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74*, Article 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263

Coffey, Y., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M. S., & Usher, K. (2021). Understanding eco-anxiety: A systematic scoping review of current literature and identified knowledge gaps. *The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3*, Article 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100047

Cohen, S. (2013). *States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering*. John Wiley & Sons.

Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Dunbar, J. P., Watson, K. H., Bettis, A. H., Gruhn, M. A., & Williams, E. K. (2014). Coping and emotion regulation from childhood to early adulthood: Points of convergence and divergence. *Australian Journal of Psychology, 66*(2), 71-81.

Corral-Verdugo, V. (2021). Psychology of climate change (*Psicología del cambio climático*). *PsyEcology, 12*(2), 254-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2021.1901188

Costantini, G., Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., Perugini, M., Möttus, R., Waldorp, L. J., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2015). State of the aRt personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. *Journal of Research in Personality, 54*, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.003

Cummings, T. G., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). A cybernetic theory of organizational stress. *Theories of Organizational Stress, 101-121*.

Dodds, J. (2021). The psychology of climate anxiety. *BJPsych Bulletin, 45*(4), 222-226. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2021.18

Eisenbarth, C. (2012). Coping profiles and psychological distress: A cluster analysis. *North American Journal of Psychology, 14*, 485.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion, and avoidance strategies. *Psychological Assessment, 6*(1), 50.

Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. *Behavior Research Methods, 50*(1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1

Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. *Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21*(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701740457

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. *Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21*, 219-239.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping : Pitfalls and promise. *Annual Review of Psychology, 55*(1), 745-774. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456

Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2008). Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. *Biostatistics, 9*(3), 432-441. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kkm045

Gibson, P. R. (2019). Waking up to the environmental crises. *Ecopsychology, 11*(2), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0018

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. *American Psychologist, 66*(4), 290-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

Hadarics, M. (2021). The palliative function of climate change denial is stronger in more exposed countries. *Ecopsychology, 13*(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2020.0031

Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34*, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005

Hartmann, P., Eisend, M., Apaolaza, V., & D'Souza, C. (2017). Warm glow vs. altruistic values: How important is intrinsic emotional reward in pro-environmental behavior? *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52*, 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.006

Helm, S. V., Li, X., Curran, M. A., & Barnett, M. A. (2022). Coping profiles in the context of global environmental threats: A person-centered approach. *Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 35*(5), 609-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2021.2004132

Helm, S. V., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M. A., Curran, M. A., & Craig, Z. R. (2018). Differentiating environmental concern in the context of psychological adaption to climate change. *Global Environmental Change, 48*, 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.012

Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26*(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.003

Homburg, A., Stolberg, A., & Wagner, U. (2007). Coping with global environmental problems: Development and first validation of scales. *Environment and Behavior, 39* (6), 754-778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297215

Jalin, H., Chandes, C., Boudoukha, A. H., Jacob, A., Poinset, R., & congard. (2023). Assessing eco-anxiety with a mixed method: Creation and validation of a three dimensions scale. *OSF Preprints*. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wnrjx

Jalin, H., Chandes, C., Congard, A., & Boudoukha, A.-H. (2024). Appréhender l'éco-anxiété: Une approche clinique et phénoménologique. *Psychologie Française, 69*(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2023.02.003
Jalin, H., Sapin, A., Macherey, A., Boudoukha, A. H., & Congard, A. (2024). Understanding eco-anxiety: Exploring relationships with environmental trait affects, connectedness to nature, depression, anxiety, and media exposure. *Current Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06098-y

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2007). *Individual differences in emotion regulation*.

Johnson, R. W. (2001). An introduction to the bootstrap. *Teaching Statistics, 23*(2), 49–54.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. *Psychometrika*, 23(3), 187–200.

Kühner, C., Stein, M., & Zacher, H. (2024). A person-environment fit approach to environmental sustainability in the workplace. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 95, Article 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102270

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). *Stress, appraisal, and coping*. Springer Publishing Company.

Mah, A. Y. J., Chapman, D. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Lickel, B. (2020). Coping with climate change: Three insights for research, intervention, and communication to promote adaptive coping to climate change. *Journal of Anxiety Disorders*, 75, Article 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102282

Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. *Journal of Information Policy*, 4(2014), 173–175.

Muller, L., & Spitz, E. (2003). Multidimensional assessment of coping: Validation of the brief COPE among French population. *L'Encephale*, 29(6), 507–518.

Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. *Physical Review E*, 69(2), Article 026113.

Norgaard, K. M. (2011). *Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life*. The MIT Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/19556.

O'driscoll, M., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. (2009). *Stress and coping*. The Oxford handbook of organizational well being.

Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. *Environmental Education Research, 18*(5), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157

Ojala, M. (2013). Coping with climate change among adolescents: Implications for subjective well-being and environmental engagement. *Sustainability*, 5(5), 2191–2209.

Ojala, M., & Bengtsson, H. (2019). Young people's coping strategies concerning climate change: Relations to perceived communication with parents and friends and proenvironmental behavior. *Environment and Behavior, 51*(8), 907–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518763894

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. *Psychological Bulletin*, 136(2), 257.

Pedersen, P. B., Draguns, J. G., Lonner, W. J., & Trimble, J. E. (1996). *Counseling across cultures*. Sage Publications, Inc.

Pihkala, P. (2019). Climate anxiety. *Report by Mental Health Finland*. https://www.aca.demia.edu/40803613/Climate_Anxiety.

Pihkala, P. (2022). The process of eco-anxiety and ecological grief: A narrative review and a new proposal. *Sustainability*, 14(24), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416628. Article.

Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement and personality. *Research in Higher Education*, 46(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1597-2

Reser, J. P., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. *American Psychologist*, 66(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023412

Seth, A., Maxwell, J., Dey, C., Le Feuvre, C., & Patrick, R. (2023). Understanding and managing psychological distress due to climate change. *Australian Journal of General Practice*, 52(5), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-09-22-6556

Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. *Psychological Bulletin*, 129(2), 216–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216

Snyder, C. R. (1999). *Coping: The psychology of what works*. USA: Oxford University Press.

Stanley, S. K., Hogg, T. L., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2021). From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. *The Journal of Climate Change and Health*, 1, Article 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclim.2021.100003

Taufik, D., & Venhoeven, L. (2018). Emotions and pro-environmental behaviour. In L. Steg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), *Environmental psychology* (pp. 189–197). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch19

Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. *Annual Review of Clinical Psychology*, 3(1), 377–401.

Uhl, I., Klackl, J., Hansen, N., & Jonas, E. (2018). Undesirable effects of threatening climate change information: A cross-cultural study. *Group Processes & Intergroup Relations*, 21(3), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217735577

Weintrobe, S. (2012). The difficult problem of anxiety in thinking about climate change. In *Engaging with climate change* (pp. 33–47). Routledge.

Whitmarsh, L., Player, L., Jiongco, A., James, M., Williams, M., Marks, E., & Kennedy-Williams, P. (2022). Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action? *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 83, Article 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866

Witkowski, D., & Boy, D. (2023). Une planète mobilisée ? L'opinion mondiale face au changement climatique. EDF. https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/observatoire-international-climat-et-opinions-publiques.

Wullenkord, M. C., & Reese, G. (2021). Avoidance, rationalization, and denial: Defensive self-protection in the face of climate change negatively predicts pro-environmental behavior. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 77, Article 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101683

Zeidner, M., & Endler, N. S. (1995). *Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications, 195*. John Wiley & Sons.