# Visions of Tomorrow: Emotional drivers of climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions

Lucia Bosone, Téophile Rasse, Octavia Ionescu, Marie Chevrier, Julie Collange

► To cite this version:

Lucia Bosone, Téophile Rasse, Octavia Ionescu, Marie Chevrier, Julie Collange. Visions of Tomorrow: Emotional drivers of climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025, 106, 12p. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102700. hal-05442435

HAL Id: hal-05442435

https://hal.science/hal-05442435v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

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 CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Visions of Tomorrow: Emotional drivers of climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions

Lucia Bosone<sup>a, *, b</sup>, Téophile Rasse<sup>a, b</sup>, Octavia Ionescu<sup>b, c</sup>, Marie Chevrier<sup>a, c</sup>, Julie Collange<sup>c, d</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Envisioning the future

- Behavioural change

- Climate change mitigation and adaptation

- Positive emotions

- Exposure to utopian and dystopian visions

## ABSTRACT

This research explores the effects of exposure to utopian vs. dystopian vs. neutral visions of the future (with regards to environmental sustainability or unsustainability) on individuals' intentions to mitigate and to adapt to climate change, through emotional arousal. In two pre-registered experimental studies, participants were randomly assigned to read about a utopian, dystopian, or neutral vision of future society. In Study 1 (N = 303), behavioural intentions, emotional responses to the scenario (fear, anger, sadness, hope and happiness), the ability to imagine a positive future, and beliefs about sustainable futures were assessed. Results indicated no direct effects of the visions on behavioural intentions, future imagination, or beliefs. However, exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) and a dystopian (vs. neutral) vision indirectly affect both mitigation and adaptation intentions through feelings of hope (increased and decreased, respectively). Study 2 (N = 401) partially replicated the findings of Study 1. As expected, exposure to a utopian and a dystopian vision indirectly affect mitigation intentions through feelings of hope (increased and decreased, respectively). Adaptation intentions, however, were predicted by happiness rather than hope. These findings highlight the role of positive emotions in promoting pro-environmental intentions and suggest that positive emotions can drive climate actions. While negative emotions like fear, sadness and anger were correlated with intentions, they did not predict behaviours in path analysis. This research underscores the potential of using emotionally engaging future visions to foster sustainable behaviours.

## 1. Introduction

Envisioning or imagining future societies allows individuals to mentally “pre-experience” positive and negative events, which can influence their subjective experience and emotional well-being (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2004). Several studies have demonstrated that envisioning and prospecting the future can influence motivation and decision-making (Szpunar et al., 2014), as it creates a sense of purpose and direction (Oettingen et al., 2001) that can serve as a powerful motivator for behaviour change (Moore & Boldero, 2017). To help the general population in envisioning the future, governmental and non-governmental bodies develop future scenarios, or visions, addressing societal issues like climate change and disaster resilience (Kharrazi & Kakuwa, 2017; Ziervogel et al., 2014). These visions are usually used to aid public and private sectors in navigating uncertain futures (Abdul

Rahim et al., 2021; Sardesai et al., 2021). Recently, they have been used to enhance the general public's understanding of the positive (or negative) outcomes of changing (or maintaining) the current behaviours contributing to environmental crises (e.g., the most recent IPCC scenarios), to motivate individuals to participate in sustainability efforts (Kariuki & Kuria, 2023; Kishita et al., 2016; Muleta, 2021). Yet, little research has analysed what people understand of these scenarios, and how they react to them, specifically in terms of their perceptions, emotions, actions.

The goal of the present research is to investigate and explain the effects of exposure to visions of the future (positive or negative) on individuals' intentions to engage in climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviours. Indeed, a growing body of research has demonstrated that future envisioning and thinking contributes to influence pro-environmental behaviours, especially those related to climate change

This article is part of a special issue entitled: Climate Change Adaption published in Journal of Environmental Psychology.

E-mail address: lucia.bosone@univ-eiffel.fr (L. Bosone).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, F-78000, Versailles, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université Paris Cité, Laboratoire de psychologie sociale, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author. 25 allée des Marronniers, 78000, Versailles, France.</footnote>
mitigation (e.g., Bleh et al., 2024; Chevrier et al., 2025; Daysh et al., 2024; Lalot et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020, 2022). While promoting mitigation efforts (both individual and collective) among the general population is fundamental to reduce the negative consequences of climate change, the sustainable transition requires a dual approach that includes both mitigation as well as adaptation measures (Bleby & Foerster, 2023; Fielding et al., 2014). Adaptation measures are essential to manage the already unavoidable consequences of climate change, reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience in communities (Bleby & Foerster, 2023; Woodhall et al., 2021). Adaptation strategies involve preparing for and managing the negative consequences of climate change, related to economic (market) and non-economic (non-market) damages (Mendelsohn, 2003). Market damages are economically quantifiable losses, including property destruction from extreme weather, decreased agricultural yields, or increased healthcare costs due to climate-related illnesses (e.g., Auffhammer, 2018; Diaz & Moore, 2017). In response, individuals may adapt by investing in home insulation, increasing their preparedness for extreme climatic events such as flooding, or purchasing home insurance related to climate change risks. Non-market damages, by contrast, refer to less tangible losses such as declining biodiversity, degradation to natural landscape, reduction of water-based ecosystems (e.g., Andreopoulos et al., 2015; Bosello & Parrado, 2022), as well as an increase in morbidity and mortality caused by extreme events such as heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and storms (Deschênes & Greenstone, 2011; Hoffmann, 2019; Mani et al., 2024; Matthews et al., 2025; Pugatch, 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). Citizens might respond by engaging in local conservation efforts, supporting or participating in community-led ecological restoration (e.g., tree planting, dune preservation), and advocating for protected natural areas. Furthermore, they can adapt to protect themselves against extreme events by changing their living situation, investing in home insulation, installing cooling systems or seeking shaded urban spaces during heatwaves, clearing vegetation around the house to create defensible space against wildfires, and securing loose structures to prepare for storms. Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies essential to tackling climate change (Brügger et al., 2015; Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a). Indeed, while mitigation aims to limit future climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation focuses on adjusting to current and anticipated impacts. Both work toward the shared goal of minimizing climate-related risks and damages, and past research on individuals' willingness to engage in mitigation and adaptation demonstrated an association between the two (Arbuckle et al., 2013; Bichard & Kazmierczak, 2012).

The importance of the synergy between adaptation and mitigation efforts for the effective management of climate change (Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a) has pushed us to wonder whether exposure to a utopian or a dystopian vision of the future could have similar or different effects on both mitigation and adaptation behaviours. More precisely, we argue that exposure to both utopian and dystopian visions of the future could increase behavioural intentions with regards to mitigation and adaptation, through emotional arousal.

## 1.1. *The motivational effects of imagining a positive or a negative future*

Envisioning positive, utopian future scenarios can enhance motivation and increase the willingness to engage in goal-directed behaviour (Badaan et al., 2022; Fernando et al., 2018), while envisioning negative, dystopian future scenarios can serve as a deterrent and motivate individuals to engage in pro-environmental behaviours to avoid undesirable outcomes (Kashima & Fernando, 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Monroe et al., 2017). The emotional reactions generated by exposure to either utopian or dystopian visions are an important determinant of the effectiveness of such visions, as supported by the vast empirical research demonstrating the critical role of negative emotions in particular (such as fear, worry, anger and sadness), and positive emotions more marginally (such as hope and happiness), in shaping climate

change-related judgments and behaviours (e.g., Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Coelho et al., 2017; Ejelöv et al., 2018; Ogunbode et al., 2022). Specifically, negative affects toward climate change (such as fear/-anxiety, anger and sadness; Contreras et al., 2024; Stanley et al., 2021; Voški et al., 2023) have emerged as the strongest predictor of risk perception (Van der Linden, 2015) and individual mitigation actions, like saving electricity or using public transport (Xie et al., 2019) as well as support for climate policies (Bouman et al., 2020; Goldberg et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018). A meta-analysis of 106 studies found negative affect to be a top predictor of adaptation behaviours as well, such as purchasing insurance or seeking hazard information (Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b). At the same time, even if negative emotions have consistently demonstrated to boost the motivation to act, past research has also demonstrated that they can have a boomerang effect, especially when fear and anxiety are overwhelming and lead to threat denial (Feinberg & Willer, 2011; Haltinner & Sarathchandra, 2018; O'Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009). This is why a growing, yet limited, body of research has demonstrated that positive emotions, such as hope, also play a significant motivating role, though their impact can be nuanced (for a review, see Geiger et al., 2023). Hope, particularly efficacy-based hope—confidence in the effectiveness of personal or collective actions—has been associated with higher engagement in both climate mitigation (Ettinger et al., 2021; Hornsey & Fielding, 2016; Ojala, 2012; Russell & Ashkanasy, 2021) and adaptation behaviours (Bukchin & Kerret, 2020; Cohen-Chen & Van Zomeren, 2018; Peles & Kerret, 2021). Happiness is another positive emotion that seems to be positively correlated with pro-social and pro-environmental behaviours, although the research supporting the specific influence of happiness is very limited and mostly focused on happiness resulting from well-being (e.g., Kasser, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2024; Zelenski & Desrochers, 2021). Positive affect fosters a proactive mindset, helping individuals visualize successful outcomes of their efforts.

Although past research on the effects of negative emotions is larger than the research on the effects of positive emotions, these effects are consistent. It is thus possible to argue that exposure to both utopian and dystopian visions of the future could increase mitigation and adaptation intentions, through the elicitation of positive (hope and happiness) and negative (fear, sadness, anger) emotions, respectively. This aligns with a recent experimental study by Troy et al. (2024) which explores how climate messaging impacts intentions to act on climate change. The study examined whether fear-based “cautionary” messages or hopeful “positive alternative” messages better motivate pro-environmental behaviour through emotional responses. Participants were exposed to one of four messages: cautionary, positive alternative, combined, or neutral. Results demonstrated that cautionary messages increased fear, significantly boosting climate action intentions. Positive alternative messages evoked hope, particularly in individuals with high collective efficacy beliefs, also promoting action intentions but less effectively than fear. These conclusions are consistent with the results obtained by Daysh et al. (2024) in two studies, where positive (utopian) future thinking improved pro-environmental intentions by increasing the feelings of hope, while negative (dystopian) future thinking improved them by increasing fear (although this effect was only found in the second study).

However, no study has yet analysed the specific effects of exposure to utopian vs. dystopian (vs. neutral) visions of the future on individuals' intentions to engage in climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviours through emotional arousal, as Daysh et al. (2024) elicited individuals' own positive or negative visions without exposing them to scenarii (or visions), and Troy et al. (2024) presented cautionary messages rather than dystopian visions of the future.

## 1.2. *Overall objectives*

In the present research, we addressed the gap evidenced in literature, by investigating the effects of utopian vs. dystopian visions of the future on climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions, depending on
the emotions elicited. In two experimental studies, we tested the indirect effects of exposure to dystopian and utopian (vs. neutral) visions through emotional arousal. More precisely, based on past research on the ambivalent impact of negative emotions that have the potential to boost but also to reduce motivation (via threat denial), we tested in the first study two opposite hypothesis on the effect of message exposure on behavioural intentions, the first one linear (H1: utopian > control > dystopian) and the second one quadratic (H2: utopian = dystopian > control). In the first study, the initial aim was also to examine the effect of future visions on individuals' ability to imagine a positive eco-sustainable future, their beliefs about the existence of strategies to accomplish such positive future, and their intentions. Indeed, recent research has demonstrated how individuals' decision to engage in pro-environmental behaviours is influenced by their ability to imagine a sustainable society alternative to the status quo (Bosone et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020, 2022) as well as by their beliefs in the existence of solutions for achieving it (Basso & Krpan, 2020; Chevrier et al., 2024). Based on this line of research, Study 1 initially aimed to test whether the ability to imagine a positive future could mediate the effect of exposure to utopian vs. dystopian visions on behavioural intentions. The study of the mediating role of emotions was therefore secondary (pre-registered as an exploratory analysis). However, as this exploratory analysis yielded interesting results, we then decided to replicate the emotion-related findings in a second study. The present research was approved by the research ethics committee of the corresponding author's university. Materials, data, results and supplementary information are available on the OSF: https://shorturl.at/YDrCV.

## 2. Study 1

The aim of this pre-registered study (https://urls.fr/HoCGxt) was to examine the influence of exposure to a text (a scenario) describing a utopian vs. dystopian vs. neutral vision of the future society in terms of environmental sustainability on: behavioural intentions to adapt and mitigate, the ability to imagine the future, and beliefs. For exploratory purposes, we also aimed to examine the influence of exposure to these scenarios on participants' emotions.

### 2.1. Method

#### 2.1.1. Procedure

After reading an information letter and giving their consent to participate, participants were asked to read attentively a scenario describing a vision of the society in the year 2050. The text began by describing the levels of greenhouse gas emissions in this future society and the lifestyles of individuals living in this society. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three possible scenarios: utopian, dystopian or neutral (see 2.1.2. Materials section for details).

After reading the scenario, participants were asked two multiple-choice questions to check if they had read the text properly and to rate the valence of the scenario they had been exposed to, on a 7-point scale (1 = "strongly negative" to 7 = "strongly positive"). Participants then completed a series of measures in a randomised order (cf. 2.1.3. Measures section): behavioural intentions, ability to imagine the future, beliefs about sustainable futures, and emotional states. In addition, three attention checks were included along the questionnaire (as reported in the Supplementary Information). After completing the measures, participants were thanked and fully debriefed.

#### 2.1.2. Material

To construct the three scenarios, we drew on those proposed by ADEME (Agence de l'environnement et de la maîtrise de l'énergie), a French agency working to promote ecological transition. The first sentence indicated the level of greenhouse gas emissions in society in 2050. The scenarios began as follows: "Now imagine society of 2050. In this society, greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced (utopian

condition)/have remained the same (neutral condition)/have increased (dystopian condition)". The scenario then described the lifestyle (housing, energy consumption, travel, mobility, food and agricultural production) that would have led to reduced, equal or increased greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the condition.<fnref n="1" />

To ensure that the scenarios differed in terms of valence, we conducted a pre-test. 61 participants were recruited through the Prolific platform on April 2024 (51 % male, $M_{age} = 33.5, SD_{age} = 10.5$, range: 21–69). Participants were exposed to either the utopian, the dystopian or the neutral scenario, and were then asked to rate the scenario on three items, using a 7-point scale: regarding the valence (1 = “negative” to 7 = “positive”) of the scenario, its desirability (1 = “undesirable” to 7 = “desirable”), and its plausibility (1 = “implausible” to 7 = “plausible”).

We conducted a one-way ANOVA for each rated aspect and compared the three conditions with post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's correction. The analyses revealed a significant effect of the scenarios participants were exposed to, $F(2,58) = 74.26, p < .001, \eta^2 = .72$ and $F(2,58) = 58.21, p < .001, \eta^2 = .67$ for valence and desirability respectively. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the utopian scenario was rated more positively ($M = 6.20, SD = 1.73$) and more desirable ($M = 6.15; SD = 1.72$) than the dystopian scenario ($M = 1.43; SD = .60; t(58) = -6.19, p < .001$ and $M = 1.43, SD = .93; t(58) = -10.76, p < .001$, for valence and desirability respectively). In addition, the utopian scenario was evaluated more positively and more desirable than the neutral scenario ($M = 3.55; SD = 1.19; t(58) = -6.68, p < .001$ and $M = 3.43, SD = 1.43, t(58) = -12.17, p < .001$, for valence and desirability respectively). Finally, the neutral scenario was rated more positively and more desirable than the dystopian one ($t(58) = 5.41, p < .001$ and $t(58) = 4.49, p < .001$, for valence and desirability respectively). For plausibility, the analyses showed a significant effect of the type of scenario, $F(2,58) = 21.69, p < .001, \eta^2 = .43$. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the neutral scenario was rated as more plausible ($M = 6.10, SD = 1.33$) than the dystopian scenario ($M = 3.62; SD = 1.40; t(58) = 5.78, p < .001$) and the utopian scenario ($M = 3.65, SD = 1.39; t(58) = 5.64, p < .001$). The latter two conditions were not significantly different from each other ($t(58) = -.07, p = .997$).

#### 2.1.3. Measures

Unless stated otherwise, participants endorsed each item on a 7-point scale (1 = “Completely disagree” to 7 = “Completely agree”).

**Behavioural Intentions.** We used a French translation of the mitigation and adaptation intentions scale used by Brügger et al. (2015). This scale included 20 behaviours, 12 of which were mitigation behaviours (e.g., “Selecting a car with low fuel consumption”) and eight of which were adaptation behaviours (e.g., “Subscribing to insurance against climate change-related risks (e.g., floods) for your home.”). All items are included in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material file. For each behaviour, participants were asked to indicate how likely they would be to adopt it in the future, using a 7-point scale (1 = “Very unlikely” to 7 = “Very likely”). We conducted a Confirmatory Factorial Analysis on these 20 items and tested a two-factor model. Fit indices were not satisfactory: $\chi^2(169) = 618.19, p < .001, CFI = .835, TLI = .815, RMSEA = .094, 90 \% IC [.086, .102], SRMR = .065$.

After careful reading, it appeared that some items could be considered as both mitigation and adaptation intentions (e.g., “donating money to an association protecting endangered species” is a behaviour that can pursue both mitigation and adaptation purposes). In addition, we conducted an Exploratory Factorial Analysis which revealed that some items did not load on their expected theoretical factor and/or had low loadings (see Supplementary Information, Table S1, p2). As a result, we made the decision - based both on conceptual considerations with

<footnote n="1">¹ It is important to acknowledge that these scenarios are intentionally extreme (especially the dystopian one) to explore the boundaries of emotional (and cognitive) responses.</footnote>
regards to the possible overlap of mitigation and adaptation strategies in the same behaviour, and on the results of the EFA - to include only the items that were indubitably related to mitigation vs. adaptation. Six behaviours were retained for each behavioural intentions dimension (designated with * in Table S1). We submitted the 12 items to CFA to test a two-factor model. This model showed satisfactory fit indices: $\chi^2$ (53) = 117.86, $p < .001$, CFI = .955, TLI = .944; RMSEA = .064, 90 % IC [.048, .079], SRMR = .038. Internal consistency was satisfactory ($\alpha$ = .849 and $\alpha$ = .833, for mitigation and adaptation respectively).

**Ability to Imagine the Future.** We used a French and short version (six items, such as “I can easily envision a world where all our energy needs are met without harming nature”; $\alpha$ = .872) of the Environmental Cognitive Alternatives scale (Bosone et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020).

**Beliefs about Sustainable Futures.** The measure of beliefs about a sustainable future was inspired by the second factor of the Transformative Utopian Impulse for Planetary Health scale (TUIPH, Basso & Krpan, 2022). We created six items (three positive, inspired by the TUIPH scale, and three negative that we created ad hoc for this study; $\alpha$ = .819) measuring individuals' beliefs in the existence of valid alternatives to achieve an environmentally sustainable future (e.g., “Multiple solutions can be implemented to achieve an ecological society.”). We submitted the six items to CFA to test a one-factor solution. The residuals of the two reverse items were allowed to correlate<fnref n="2" /> (e.g., Lindwall et al., 2012). The analysis showed that the one-factor model fitted the data well: $\chi^2$ (8) = 10.51, $p$ = .231, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99; RMSEA = .032, 90 % IC [.000, .079], SRMR = .024.

**Emotions.** Emotions were assessed using a list of 14 emotions compiled from the literature on emotions (e.g., Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Contreras et al., 2024; Kleres & Wettergren, 2017; Millgram et al., 2015). The selected emotions were: sadness (i.e., sad; depressed, morose; $\alpha$ = .915), anger (i.e., angry, revolted, outraged; $\alpha$ = .935), happiness (i.e., joyful, happy, delighted; $\alpha$ = .954), hope (optimistic, hopeful; $r$ = .81, $p$ < .001) and fear (i.e., anxious, worried, scared; $\alpha$ = .926). Participants were asked to indicate how reading the text made them feel regarding each emotion using a 7-point scale from (1 = “not at all” to 7 = “a great deal”). We submitted the 14 emotions to CFA testing a five-factor solution. The analysis revealed that the five-factor model fitted the data well: $\chi^2$ (67) = 128.63, $p$ < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .98; RMSEA = .055, 90 % IC [.041, .069], SRMR = .016.

### 2.1.4. Participants

389 adults were recruited to participate in this study through Bilendi, a market research company. 86 participants who dropped out before the end of the experiment or responded incorrectly to the comprehension and attention check items, were discarded from the analyses. The final sample consisted of 303 French-speaking adult participants (53 % females; $M_{age}$ = 49.3; $SD_{age}$ = 16.5; Range: 18–94). More information about participants' occupations and their distribution between experimental conditions can be found in the Supplementary Information (Table S2 and Table S3).

As our sample size was determined by funding constraints, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007; version 3.1.9.6). This analysis revealed that for a regression analysis including 2 predictors (i.e., contrasts, see 3. Results), and given $\alpha$ < .05, a desired power of 1-$\beta$ = .80 and a sample size of $N$ = 303, we had a 80 % chance to detect an effect as small as $f^2$ = .032 (see Supplementary Information, p. 4).

## 2.2. Results

We aimed to test two competing hypotheses. The first one (H1)

predicted a linear trend: Participants in the utopian condition would report higher (a) ability to imagine the future, (b) beliefs about existing solutions, (c) mitigation intentions and (d) adaptation intentions, than participants in the neutral condition; who themselves would report higher (a) ability to imagine the future, (b) beliefs about existing solutions, (c) mitigation and (d) adaptation intentions than participants in the dystopian condition (i.e., Utopian > Neutral > Dystopian). The second one (H2) predicted a quadratic trend: Participants in the utopian and dystopian conditions would report higher (a) ability to imagine the future, (b) beliefs about existing solutions, (c) mitigation and (d) adaptation intentions than those in the neutral condition (i.e., Utopian and Dystopian > Neutral). As pre-registered, for each dependent variable, we ran a regression analysis including two contrasts. The first contrast tested the linear trend: the utopian condition was coded +1, the neutral condition was coded 0, and the dystopian condition was coded -1. The second contrast tested the quadratic trend: the neutral condition was coded -2 and the utopian and dystopian conditions were coded +1. The correlation matrix between the variables and descriptive statistics is available in the Supplementary Information (Table S4).

### 2.2.1. Manipulation check

We expected participants in the utopian condition to rate the scenario more positively than participants in the neutral condition, and the latter to rate the scenario more positively than participants in the dystopian scenario. The model was significant, $R^2$ = .72, $p$ < .001. As expected, the linear contrast was significant, $\beta$ = .846, $SE$ = .082, $t$ (300) = 27.577, $p$ < .001, 95 % IC [2.105, 2.429], while the contrast testing the quadratic trend was not, $\beta$ = -.056, $SE$ = .052, $t$ (300) = -1.886, $p$ = .060, 95 % IC [-.202, .004]. Participants in the utopian condition rated the scenario more positively ($M$ = 5.81, $SD$ = 1.41) than those in the neutral condition ($M$ = 3.84, $SD$ = 1.43) and in the dystopian condition ($M$ = 1.28, $SD$ = .71).

### 2.2.2. Main analysis

The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 1. None of the models tested were significant, $R^2$ ≤ .003, $p$ ≤ .661. Thus, neither of our two competing hypotheses were verified: exposure to a utopian or dystopian scenario did not lead to any significant differences in the ability to imagine the future, the beliefs about existing solutions, or mitigation and adaptation intentions (see the Supplementary Information for descriptive statistics, Table S5).

### 2.2.3. Supplementary analysis: exposure to future scenarios, emotions and pro-environmental behavioural intentions (path analysis)

Consistent with recent work showing that future scenarios might indirectly impact behavioural intentions through emotions (Troy et al.,

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Regression analysis for ability to imagine the future, beliefs about existing solutions, and mitigation and adaptation intentions (study 1).

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>β</th><th>SE</th><th>t</th><th>95 % IC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Ability to Imagine the Future</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Linear Contrast</td><td>.043</td><td>.092</td><td>.750</td><td>[-.113, .251]</td></tr><tr><td>Quadratic Contrast</td><td>.024</td><td>.059</td><td>.415</td><td>[-.091, .140]</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.002</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Beliefs</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Linear Contrast</td><td>.022</td><td>.059</td><td>.383</td><td>[-.093, .138]</td></tr><tr><td>Quadratic Contrast</td><td>.031</td><td>.037</td><td>.540</td><td>[-.053, .094]</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Behavioural Intentions - Mitigation</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Linear Contrast</td><td>-.043</td><td>.092</td><td>-.743</td><td>[-.250, .113]</td></tr><tr><td>Quadratic Contrast</td><td>.031</td><td>.059</td><td>.536</td><td>[-.084, .147]</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.003</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Behavioural Intentions - Adaptation</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Linear Contrast</td><td>.011</td><td>.088</td><td>.183</td><td>[-.157, .189]</td></tr><tr><td>Quadratic Contrast</td><td>.026</td><td>.056</td><td>.454</td><td>[-.085, .135]</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="2">² The one-factor solution (with no correlated error terms) did not fit the data well: $\chi^2$ (8) = 143.27, $p$ < .001, CFI = .84, TLI = .74; RMSEA = .22, 90 % IC [.191, .255], SRMR = .102.</footnote>
2024), we explored whether and how exposure to a dystopian or a utopian scenario (compared to a neutral one) affected participants' feelings of hope, happiness, sadness, fear and anger<fnref n="3" />; and how these emotions in turn predicted their intention to engage in adaptation and mitigation behaviours. To do so, we conducted path analysis.

Before conducting the analysis, we created two dummy codings, contrasting the neutral future condition with each of the other conditions (utopian and dystopian): D1 (neutral coded 0, utopian coded 1, dystopian coded 0) opposed the neutral condition to the utopian future condition, while D2 (neutral coded 0, utopian coded 0, dystopian coded 1) opposed the neutral condition to the dystopian future condition. When using dummy codes, the group that receives 0s on all dummy codes (here, the neutral future condition) functions as the “reference group” (e.g., Myers et al., 2023).

We then run the path analysis using the lavaan package in R Studio (version 4.2.3). We used the observed scores. The dummy codings – D1 (opposing the neutral to the utopian condition) and D2 (opposing the neutral to the dystopian condition) – were our exogenous variables. The emotion scores (hope, happiness, anger, sadness and fear) and the pro-environmental intention scores (adaptation, mitigation) were our endogenous variables. We tested a model where the emotion scores were parallel mediators of the relationships between the dummy codings and the pro-environmental intentions scores. As we were interested in the effect of exposure to future scenarios on pro-environmental intentions via emotions, we only specified the indirect paths (from D1 and D2 to the five emotions scores; and from the five emotions scores to the two pro-environmental intentions scores). We also estimated the covariance between the five emotion scores and between two pro-environmental intentions scores. The main regression results are presented in Fig. 1 (for the complete results including the covariances: see Table S7 in the Supplementary Information).

The model presented an excellent fit with the data, $\chi^2(4) = 2.52, p = .64$, $TLI = 1$, $CFI = 1$, $RMSEA = .00$, $SRMR = .011$ (Marsh et al., 2005). Results showed that exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) scenario led to increased feelings of hope and happiness and decreased feelings of anger, fear and sadness; while exposure to a dystopian (vs. neutral) scenario led to decreased feelings of hope and happiness and increased feelings of anger, fear and sadness. Feelings of hope (but not the other emotions) in turn significantly and positively predicted intentions to engage in both mitigation and adaptation behaviours.

We then tested the indirect effects using Bootstrapping procedure (5000 samples; see Table 2). The indirect effects of exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) and dystopian (vs. neutral) scenario on mitigation and adaptation behaviours through feelings of hope (estimated using Bootstrapping procedure, 5000 samples) were all significant (0 was not included in the confidence intervals).

## 2.3. Discussion

Study 1 showed that exposure to utopian vs. dystopian vs. neutral visions of the future does not directly influence individuals' mitigation or adaptation intentions, nor their ability to imagine a positive eco-friendly future or their beliefs about the existence of solutions to achieve it. However, the indirect effects of both exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) and dystopian (vs. neutral) vision through hope were significant. More precisely, exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) future led to increased feelings of hope; and this increase of hope in turn predicted an increase in mitigation and adaptation intentions. Conversely, exposure to a dystopian (vs. neutral) future led to decreased feelings of hope; and this decrease of hope was in turn associated with decreased mitigation

and adaptation intentions.

These findings are in line with those of Troy et al. (2024), but also suggest that positive emotions might be more directly linked to mitigation and adaptation intentions than negative emotions, which contrasts with past studies emphasizing the role of negative emotions as drivers of pro-environmental behavioural change (Kothe et al., 2019; Ogunbode et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2021). We therefore carried out a second experimental study to test if we would replicate our findings.

# 3. Study 2

We aimed to replicate the indirect effect of exposure to a utopian or dystopian scenario on mitigation and adaptation behaviours through hope. Hypotheses, method and analyses were pre-registered (https://shorturl.at/NL7vM).

## 3.1. Method

### 3.1.1. Participants

In order to ensure sufficient power for Structural Equation Modeling, we used Jackson (2003) recommendations to determine our minimum sample size. According to Jackson (2003), a ratio of 10:1 (10 participants per 1 free parameter) is acceptable. As we planned to estimate 40 parameters (20 paths, 11 co-variances and 9 residual errors), we aimed to collect a minimum of N = 400. 426 adults were recruited via the Prolific platform, to participate in this study. 25 participants, who dropped out before the end of the experiment or responded incorrectly to comprehension and attention check items, were excluded from the analyses. The final sample consisted of 401 French-speaking adult participants (50.4 % Men; $M_{age} = 33.13; SD_{age} = 10.79$; Range: 18–76). More information about the participants' occupations and their distribution between experimental conditions can be found in the Supplementary Information (Table S9 and Table S10).

### 3.1.2. Procedure

Study 2 procedure was identical to that of Study 1. After reading an information letter and giving their consent to participate, participants were randomly assigned to one of three possible scenarios: utopian, dystopian or neutral. Participants then answered two comprehension questions and rated the valence of the scenario to which they had been exposed. Finally, participants completed the mitigation and adaptation behavioural intentions ($\alpha = .777$ and $\alpha = .795$ for mitigation and adaptation respectively), and indicated the extent to which they experienced the following emotions: sadness ($\alpha = .923$), anger ($\alpha = .923$), fear ($\alpha = .922$), happiness ($\alpha = .958$) and hope ($r(401) = .87, p < .001$).<fnref n="4" />

## 3.2. Results

The correlation matrix among the variables is available in the Supplementary Information (Table S11).

### 3.2.1. Manipulation check

Participants indicated the valence of the scenario they were exposed to on four items (i.e., positive, desirable, pleasant and utopian, $\alpha = .952$). We expected participants in the utopian condition to rate the scenario as more positive than participants in the neutral condition, who will themselves evaluate the scenario as more positive than participants in the dystopian scenario. To do so, we tested the linear and quadratic trends, using the same linear and quadratic contrasts as for Study 1 (see Section 2.2). The model was significant, $R^2 = .83, p < .001$. As expected, the linear contrast was significant, $\beta = .912, SE = .051, t(300) = 44.508$,

<footnote n="3">³ In accordance with the pre-registration, we also performed a series of regression analyses that included linear contrast and quadratic contrast as predictors for each emotional state. The results are presented in the Supplementary Information (pp.5-6, Table S6).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ As in Study 1, participants also completed the ability to imagine the future and the beliefs about sustainable futures measures. We will not report the results for those measures, but the data is available on OSF.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Path diagram (Study 1): Exposure to future scenarios, emotions and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. *Notes.* The unstandardized coefficients are displayed. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05. We also estimated the covariance between the five emotion scores and between two pro-environmental intentions scores (see Table S7 in the Supplementary Information).</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Indirect effects via hope (Study 1).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Indirect effect estimate</th><th>95 % Confidence Interval</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>D1 (Utopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Adaptation</td><td>.28</td><td>[.04, .51]</td></tr><tr><td>D2 (Dystopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Adaptation</td><td>-.38</td><td>[-.69, -.07]</td></tr><tr><td>D1 (Utopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Mitigation</td><td>.32</td><td>[.07, .57]</td></tr><tr><td>D2 (Dystopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Mitigation</td><td>-.44</td><td>[-.77, -.11]</td></tr></tbody></table>

p < .001, 95 % IC [2.179, 2.381], while the contrast testing the quadratic trend was not, $\beta = .030, SE = .030, t(300) = 1.440, p = .151$, 95 % IC [-.016, .104]. Participants in the utopian condition rated the scenario more positively ($M = 5.88, SD = 1.02$) than those in the neutral condition ($M = 3.47, SD = .88$). The latter evaluated the scenario more positively than participants in the dystopian condition ($M = 1.32, SD = .58$).

### 3.2.2. Path analysis

As pre-registered, we conducted path analysis to see if we would replicate Study 1 complementary results. More precisely, we tested whether exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) future will have an indirect effect on both mitigation and adaptation intentions through increased

feelings of hope, while exposure to a dystopian (vs. neutral) future will have an indirect effect on both mitigation and adaptation intentions through decreased feelings of hope.

The analysis strategy was identical to that of Study 1. We created the same two dummy codings: D1 (neutral coded 0, utopian coded 1, dystopian coded 0) and D2 (neutral coded 0, utopian coded 0, dystopian coded 1). The path analysis was conducted using the lavaan package in R Studio (version 4.2.3) and we tested the exact same model as in Study 1. The main regression results are presented in Fig. 2 (for the complete results: see Table S15 in the Supplementary Information).

The model presented an excellent fit with the data, $\chi^2(4) = 6.58, p = .16, TLI = .99, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .01$ (Marsh et al., 2005). As expected, exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) scenario led to increased feelings of hope and happiness and decreased feelings of anger, fear and sadness; while exposure to a dystopian (vs. neutral) scenario led to decreased feelings of hope and happiness and increased feelings of anger, fear and sadness. In line with our expectations, feelings of hope (but not the other emotions) in turn significantly predicted increased intention to engage in mitigation behaviours. However, contrary to our expectations, the link between hope and intention to engage in adaptation behaviours was not significant, whereas happiness significantly predicted adaptation intentions.

The indirect effects (estimated using Bootstrapping procedure, 5000 samples; see Table 3) of exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) and dystopian (vs. neutral) scenario on mitigation intentions via hope were significant (0 was not included in the confidence intervals); and so were the

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Path diagram (Study 2): Exposure to future scenarios, emotions and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. *Notes.* The unstandardized coefficients are displayed. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05. We also estimated the covariance between the five emotion scores and between two pro-environmental intentions scores (see Table S15 in the Supplementary Information).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Indirect effects via hope and happiness (Study 2).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Indirect effect estimate</th><th>95 % Confidence Interval</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>D1 (Utopian vs. Neutral) - > Happiness - > Adaptation</td><td>.37</td><td>[.04, .70]</td></tr><tr><td>D2 (Dystopian vs. Neutral) - > Happiness - > Adaptation</td><td>-.20</td><td>[-.39, -.02]</td></tr><tr><td>D1 (Utopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Mitigation</td><td>.38</td><td>[.04, .71]</td></tr><tr><td>D2 (Dystopian vs. Neutral) - > Hope - > Mitigation</td><td>-.16</td><td>[-.31, -.02]</td></tr></tbody></table>

indirect effects of exposure to a utopian (vs. neutral) and dystopian (vs. neutral) scenario on adaptation intentions via happiness.

In other words, our results only partially confirmed our hypotheses. As expected, exposure to a utopian or dystopian (vs. neutral) future indirectly impacted mitigation intentions through feelings of hope (increased and decreased respectively). However, regarding adaptation intentions, the effect of hope was not significant: exposure to a utopian or dystopian (vs. neutral) future indirectly impacted adaptation intentions via feelings of happiness (increased and decreased, respectively).

## 4. Discussion

This research addressed a gap in the literature on the influence of future thinking on pro-environmental behavioural intentions by examining, in two pre-registered experimental studies, the effects of exposure to utopian and dystopian (vs. neutral) visions of the future on climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions, through the positive and negative emotions elicited by such visions.

Present data showed that the effect of exposure to a utopian or dystopian (vs. neutral) vision of the future regarding the environmental situation on individuals' pro-environmental intentions are not direct, but operates through the emotions elicited by these visions, and more precisely positive emotions. Indeed, both studies showed that positive feelings (increased by exposure to a utopian vision and decreased by exposure to a dystopian one) predicted climate change mitigation and adaptation intentions. Specifically, climate change mitigation was predicted by feelings of hope (Studies 1 and 2), while climate change adaptation was predicted either by feelings of hope (Study 1) or happiness (Study 2). These results align with previous research on mitigation behaviours, which showed that hope can be a powerful driver of behavioural change (Geiger et al., 2023), and that it can be enhanced through positive visions of the future (Daysh et al., 2024; Wenzel et al., 2024). However, this is the first time such results have been tested with adaptation behaviours. Unlike mitigation, which focuses on addressing the causes of risks (preventive), adaptive behaviour involves responding to the current negative consequences of climate change (reactive), requiring acknowledgment of the immediate presence of risk. Nonetheless, when risks are perceived as both imminent and severe, individuals may experience feelings of powerlessness, which can lead to denial or inaction (e.g., Peters et al., 2013). Our findings indicate that future visions portraying the extreme consequences of climate change can demotivate individuals from adopting adaptation behaviours by reducing positive emotions. In contrast, future visions depicting the mitigation of these negative consequences significantly enhance positive emotions, which, in turn, motivate individuals to engage in adaptation behaviours. These results highlight the importance of framing adaptation within a broader framework of risk management—one that also integrates mitigation efforts aimed at reducing future risks.

The fact that hope consistently predicted mitigation intentions, while this effect was inconsistent for adaptation intentions, may be because while hope is usually associated with a goal that is uncertain and distant (Luo et al., 2022; Roseman et al., 1994), whereas happiness typically

follows the accomplishment of a goal (e.g., Vogelaar et al., 2024). This distinction may explain why hope consistently predicted - in both studies - intentions to engage in mitigation behaviours, which focus on reducing the negative (future) consequences of climate change, whereas happiness predicts intentions to engage in adaptation behaviours, which prioritize adjusting to current or near-future risks posed by climate change. Further research is needed to investigate whether the different temporal dimensions of these two emotions are the reason why they vary in their prediction of these two types of behaviours.

The inconsistency with regards to the positive emotion predicting adaptation intentions (hope for Study 1 and happiness for Study 2) could be due to a methodological limitation with regards to how hope and happiness were measured. Indeed, hope was assessed in the present research from an emotional perspective, however Ojala (2017) suggests that inconsistent findings have emerged when hope is considered as an emotion in predicting pro-environmental behaviours. She argues that it is fundamental to adopt a more cognitive approach by identifying the sources of hope (and not just focusing on its intensity). This shift allows to differentiate between different types of hope, such as constructive hope and denial hope. The meta-analysis by Geiger et al. (2023) warns against “denial hope”, a form of optimism that minimizes perceived risks, which can reduce motivation for action (Ojala, 2012). Thus, hope seems to be an effective driver of action only when it aligns with realistic and actionable outcomes; in other words, with efficacy beliefs, which are important predictors of both mitigation and adaptation efforts (Hamann & Reese, 2020; 2024; Van Valkengoed et al., 2024). In the present studies, the way hope was measured did not allow to account for the two possible types of hope (denial hope and constructive hope), and it is possible that participants in the two studies felt different types of hope. Similarly, past research in the field of positive psychology and well-being has demonstrated that happiness and joy are connected to strong resilience (Ekpe et al., 2023), increasing well-being and reducing stress (Feicht et al., 2013; Ong et al., 2006), especially when related to individuals' perception of self-efficacy (Caprara et al., 2006; Dogan et al., 2013). As such, happiness also depends on efficacy beliefs which might have varied among participants, and which were not measured in the present research. Further research should thus take into consideration the source of the positive emotions elicited when analysing how exposure to future scenarios influences emotional responses, especially with regards to efficacy beliefs as a possible source of both constructive hope and happiness.

Present data also showed that negative emotions, although they were positively correlated (see Tables S4 and S11 in the Supplementary Information) with both mitigation and adaptation intentions (in line with past studies on the predicting role of worry, fear and anger; e.g., Stanley et al., 2021), do not result as significant predictors of either types of intention in the path analyses. This is somehow in contrast with past research on both the persuasiveness of climate change messages, which has consistently shown that eliciting negative emotions, such as fear and guilt, increases persuasiveness (Kothe et al., 2019; McDonald et al., 2015; Witte & Allen, 2000), as well as the role of anger as a driver of climate action and activism (e.g., Panno et al., 2021). Indeed, fear-based communication has been demonstrated as rather effective to promote pro-environmental behavioural change (e.g., Hine et al., 2016; Hornsey et al., 2015). However, it can also result in maladaptive responses, such as threat avoidance or denial, which can negatively affect individuals' engagement. While this phenomenon has been documented in the field of health-promotion (for a review, see Witte & Allen, 2000), only little empirical evidence exists on its occurrence in the field of pro-environmental behavioural change (Hornsey & Fielding, 2020; O'Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009). Since participants' beliefs in the existence of a climatic threat was not measured in the present research, we cannot exclude that the fear experienced after exposure to the dystopian vision might have had a different effect for individuals depending on their threat appraisal, which might have limited its role in predicting behavioural intentions. Similarly, the way we measured emotions could
explain why anger did not predict behavioural intentions, as we did not assess the object of such anger. For example past research showed that social action can be boosted by constructive anger, especially when this anger is system-directed (e.g., Grau, 2025; Petkanopoulou et al., 2022; Wisting, 2025), however in the present research we only measured whether people felt angry without measuring what they were angry about. Individual differences might have led some individuals to react to a dystopian vision by feeling angry towards the system that led to such an extreme negative outcome of climate change, however some might have felt angry at the moralising aspect of such an extreme message, especially if it contrasted with their political affiliation. (Myers et al., 2023; Rode et al., 2023). Future studies should further explore how individual differences (for example, with regards to their political affiliation) make people experience negative emotions directed to different elements (e.g., the threat, the system, the message per se), which could explain why these emotions, when measured broadly, do not always predict pro-environmental engagement.

Recently, a debate has emerged regarding the limited effects of increasing negative emotions and perceived threat (Van Valkengoed, Steg, & Perlaviciute, 2023), and the importance of creating messages promoting hope and optimism (Chapman et al., 2017; Moser, 2016). A few studies have demonstrated that messages focusing on possible environmental solutions and on the efficacy of pro-environmental actions and policies are effective in promoting behavioural change and policy support when they foster “constructive hope” (e.g., Feldman & Hart, 2016, 2018; Marlon et al., 2019; Ojala, 2015). Present data aligns with these recent findings, suggesting that describing a vision of a future society to the general population can be effective in boosting their motivation to participate in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, when it elicits positive emotions of hope and happiness. This could indeed be due to the influence of such positive emotions on the perceived effectiveness of mitigation effort in reducing climate change (e.g., Bergquist et al., 2021, 2022; Bosone, Thiriot, et al., 2024, Bosone, Chevrier, et al., 2024; Hamann & Reese, 2020) and of adaptation efforts in protecting themselves from climate-related hazards (Samaddar et al., 2014; Van Valkengoed et al., 2024; Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b). It is possible to argue that when individuals feel positive emotions about the reduction of the negative consequences of climate change, envisioned in a utopian future, they will consider mitigation efforts effective and adaptation strategies useful, leading to increased intention to engage in them (which is also in line with the hypothesis that only efficacy-based constructive hope is a valid motivator to behavioural change; Geiger et al., 2023). As efficacy beliefs were not measured in the present research, further studies are needed to test whether the effects of positive emotions elicited by a vision of a future on behavioural change is due to individuals' enhanced perception of the effectiveness of the promoted behaviours.

A third interesting result of the present research concerns the fact that exposure to a utopian, dystopian, or neutral vision of the future did not appear to influence individuals' ability to imagine a positive eco-friendly future, or their beliefs about the existence of solutions to accomplish it. Analysing individuals' envisioning of the future as a possible mediator of the influence of exposure to a future scenario (utopian or dystopian) was originally the objective of Study 1, but was set aside in Study 2 as the results of Study 1 were inconclusive: (i.e., envisioning the future was not directly influenced by exposure to future scenarios). These results align with those of Troy et al. (2024), where no differences were found in the ability to imagine a positive future after individuals were exposed to different types of messages about a climate future. However, a growing body of research (see for instance Bleh et al., 2024; Chevrier et al., 2025) demonstrates that the ability to imagine a positive future is a strong predictor of pro-environmental intentions and behaviours, and suggests that an effective strategy to induce pro-environmental behavioural change might be to increase such ability to imagine the future (e.g., Bosone et al., 2024; Daysh et al., 2024; Hamann & Reese, 2020). Further research is thus needed to investigate

further when and how it is possible to increase individuals' ability to imagine a positive future.

Present results are somewhat nuanced by some limitations, which could have prevented the observation of direct effects. A first limitation of this study is its focus on self-reported emotions and behavioural intentions, rather than actual behaviours. While extensive literature supports intentions as the strongest predictors of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, 2015), evidence highlights an intention-behaviour gap, where individuals with strong pro-environmental intentions do not always translate them into actions (e.g., ElHaffar et al., 2020; Grimmer & Miles, 2017; Sniehotta et al., 2014). Moreover, the experimental study took place through an online platform, which might have limited the participants' engagement in the text (e.g., Lewis et al., 2009; Loomis & Paterson, 2018). Future research should validate present findings within a laboratory setting or in the field, including actual behavioural measures of pro-environmental engagement (see Lange, 2024).

A second important limitation to the generalisability of present findings concerns the composition of our samples. While the samples were diverse in terms of gender, age and profession, the distribution of individuals in the different experimental conditions depending on these characteristics was not controlled. For instance, there is a slight imbalance with regards to gender in Study 1 (where only 45 % of the participants in the neutral condition are women, vs. 57 % in the utopian and 56 % in the dystopian conditions) and Study 2 (where only 42 % of participants in the dystopian condition are women, vs. 52 % in the utopian and 50 % in the neutral conditions). Upon the request of the reviewers, we carried out supplementary path analyses controlling for gender in both studies (see Tables S8 and S16 in the supplementary material file). These supplementary analyses revealed a significant effect of gender for mitigation and adaptation intentions, which is consistent with past literature demonstrating a tendency for women to report engaging in pro-environmental behaviours more than men (e.g., Avery et al., 2025; Briscoe et al., 2019; Zelenzy et al., 2000). Nevertheless, controlling for gender did not change our main findings, that is, the indirect effect of future scenarios on adaptation (Study 1) and mitigation (both studies) intentions via feelings of hope; which also further supports the robustness of this result (Neumayer & Plümper, 2017). The effect of happiness on adaptation intentions in Study 2 however becomes marginally significant when gender is taken into account (and so does the effect of anger), which calls for caution in the interpretation of the role of happiness in predicting adaptation behaviours. Further research should take the influence of gender into consideration when analysing positive and negative emotions linked to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Furthermore, we did not control participants' educational levels, socio-economic status or political affiliation. These factors could be associated with individual differences that moderate the effect of exposure to visions of the future (e.g., Lavelle et al., 2015; Meyer, 2015). For instance, socio-economic status as well as education influence individuals' time orientation—whether they focus on the past, present, or future (Wagner et al., 2022; Zimbardo & Boyd, 2015). Future-oriented individuals, who are more likely to be from privileged backgrounds, are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behaviours due to their concern for long-term costs and benefits (e.g., Yorkovsky & Zysberg, 2021). Conversely, present-orientation, often shaped by socio-economic precarity, brings individuals to prioritize short-term benefits, which may hinder their ability to imagine positive future scenarios (Adams & White, 2009; Fieulaine & Martinez, 2010). Time perspective could thus moderate the impact of future visions. Moreover, considering the key influence of political affiliation on climate concerns, beliefs and behaviours (Ballew et al., 2020; Cruz, 2017; Ogunbode et al., 2017), it is possible that individuals' perceived desirability of, and emotional reactions to, the utopian vs dystopian vision might have been different depending on their political opinions. While a pre-test on a convenience sample (N = 61) suggested that both the utopian and dystopian scenarios were assessed equally less plausible than the control
one, plausibility was not measured within the two studies. This is particularly important, as individuals might have considered the scenarios as more or less realistic based on their political beliefs, which could have influenced the emotions they experienced and therefore affected the results. Future research should explore these dynamics using a more diverse sample representing a range of socio-economic and educational backgrounds, as well as taking political orientation into account, to better understand these possible moderating effects.

Another limitation concerns the way in which mitigation and adaptation intentions were measured, as it did not take into consideration the possible differences among the behaviours included in the items of the scales used. The costs and benefits that individuals perceive as associated with the different mitigation and adaptation behaviours, especially with regards to market and non-market damages, can be different. For instance, individuals might feel differently with regards to specific behaviours, such as building a dam to save lives or to prevent infrastructure damages. As such, this might affect individuals' willingness to engage in one behaviour or another (Huang et al., 2020). Moreover, certain actions—like restoring urban green spaces or improving building efficiency—can serve both purposes simultaneously, addressing emissions (i.e., climate change mitigation) and enhancing climate resilience (i.e., climate change adaptation). Further research is needed to validate a scale measuring individuals' willingness to engage in mitigation and adaptation behaviours, taking into account the possible costs and benefits that individuals associate with them.

The present research offers both theoretical and practical implications. At a theoretical level, our work contributes to the currently growing body of research on how future thinking influences pro-environmental behavioural change (e.g., Bleh et al., 2024; Daysh et al., 2024; Lalot et al., 2024; Troy et al., 2024) in two ways. On the one hand, it contributes to investigating a gap in literature on the effects of exposure to utopian vs dystopian (vs neutral) visions of the future on behavioural intentions through emotional arousal, showing that positive emotions, such as hope, predict pro-environmental intentions. Further research could examine if these scenarios influence other promising outcomes, such as policy support (Van Valkengoed et al., 2022) or activism intentions. On the other hand, it presents the first studies analysing the influence of exposure to future visions on both climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviours, which remain underrepresented in the vast and growing literature analysing pro-environmental behavioural change (see Geiger et al., 2023). Furthermore, this research strongly resonates with recent work on the relationship between eco-anxiety and eco-action, which can be represented in an inverted-U shape (Van Valkengoed, Steg, & Perlaviciute, 2023); while moderate levels of anxiety may stimulate engagement (Clayton, 2020), an absence of anxiety may reflect a lack of motivation to take action (Dodds, 2021), and excessive anxiety might overwhelm individuals, reducing their capacity to act (Heeren et al., 2022; Taylor, 2022). Indeed, the present findings on the role of positive emotions (and more specifically hope) add to the body of research suggesting that constructive hope (thus accompanied by efficacy beliefs; Ojala, 2017; Geiger et al., 2023) intertines with eco-anxiety to motivate and boost adaptive responses to climate change (Innocenti et al., 2023; Sangervo et al., 2022).

At a practical level, this work offers valuable insight on the development and use of future scenarios (or visions) to increase behavioural change for the sustainable transition: increasing positive feelings about a positive and desirable eco-friendly future is an effective strategy to stimulate individuals' engagement in favour of environmental and climatic sustainability. It is however important to point out that, while the scenarios used in the present research are intentionally extreme and speculative to explore the boundaries of emotional (and cognitive) responses, they do not aim to reflect standard practices in climate change communication. Rather, they serve as a tool to better understand potential mechanisms at play when individuals are exposed to emotionally charged representations of climate futures. It is important to distinguish these from scientifically grounded but severe climate projections, which

require careful framing, both raising concern and sustaining efficacy and hope, to avoid triggering fear without agency. Indeed, research shows that while negative messaging can raise concern, it risks backfiring if not accompanied by efficacy-enhancing information and constructive pathways for action (Skurka et al., 2023; Uhl et al., 2018). Recent findings further emphasize that the interplay of threat, emotion, and efficacy beliefs is crucial in maintaining engagement and supporting pro-environmental responses, even in the face of alarming scenarios (Bloodhart et al., 2019). Raising concern thus remains an important element of climate communication, in order to reduce indifference, as demonstrated recently in an international study conducted across 63 countries (Spampatti & Doell, 2025). Findings showed that emotionally negative messages about climate change increased negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and guilt, which in turn predicted greater climate-friendly attitudes and behaviors. These findings highlight the importance of reducing indifference and carefully managing emotional responses in communications about severe climate futures. Future research should thus investigate how the insights generated from extreme narratives such as the ones used in the present research can inform the design of communications that remain emotionally impactful yet psychologically sustainable and scientifically grounded.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Lucia Bosone:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Téophile Rasse:** Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Octavia Ionescu:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Marie Chevrier:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Julie Collange:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

## Ethic statement

Ethical approval was obtained for this research from the Comité de Recherche sur la Personne Humaine (ethic committee) of the Université Gustave Eiffel.

## Funding statement

This research was partially funded by the Université Gustave Eiffel, and partially by the French National Research Agency (ANR), project « ANR-23-CE55-0001-01 ».

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102700.

## References

Abdul Rahim, R., Mohd Amin, A., & Mohd Razali, N. T. (2021). Scenario planning for development of a national anti-corruption framework. *Foresight*, 23(3), 299–310.
https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-04-2020-0040

Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. *Health Psychology*, 28(1), 83–90.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.28.1.83

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. *Health Psychology Review*, 9(2), 131–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.883474

Andreopoulos, D., Damigos, D., Comiti, F., & Fischer, C. (2015). Estimating the non-market benefits of climate change adaptation of river ecosystem services: A choice experiment application in the Aoos basin, Greece. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 45, 92–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.003
Arbuckle, J. G., Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., ... Widhalm, M. (2013). Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. *Climatic Change*, **117**, 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0707-6

Aufhammer, M. (2018). Quantifying economic damages from climate change. *The Journal of Economic Perspectives*, **32**(4), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.4.33

Avery, R. A., Kulich, C., Thaqi, L., Elbinary, A. M., El Bouchrif, H., Favre, A. N. L., ... Butera, F. (2025). Gendered attitudes towards pro-environmental change: The role of hegemonic masculinity endorsement, dominance and threat. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, **64**(1), Article e12834. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12834

Badaan, V., Akil, C., Zebian, Y., & Jost, J. T. (2022). Envisioning change: An empirical Test of the social psychological model of utopian thinking and collective action. *Journal of Social Psychology Research*, **77**–96. https://doi.org/10.37256/jspr.1120221140

Ballew, M. T., Rosenthal, S. A., Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Kotcher, J. E., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. (2020). Beliefs about others' global warming beliefs: The role of party affiliation and opinion deviance. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **70**, Article 101466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101466

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **27**(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002

Basso, F., & Krpan, D. (2022). Measuring the transformative utopian impulse for planetary health in the age of the Anthropocene: A multi-study scale development and validation. *The Lancet Planetary Health*, **6**(3), e230–e242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00004-3

Basso, F., & Krpan, D. (2020). Utopian impulse: An individual-differences approach to transformative social change.

Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N., & Jagers, S. (2021). Determinants for accepting climate change mitigation policies: A meta-analysis. *Research Square*, 10. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.3rs-338840/v1

Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2022). Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. *Nature Climate Change*, **12**(3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01297-6

Bichard, E., & Kazmierczak, A. (2012). Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? *Climatic Change*, **112**, 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0257-8

Bleby, A., & Foerster, A. (2023). A conceptual model for climate change mainstreaming in government. *Transnational Environmental Law*, **12**(3), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000158

Bleh, J., Masson, T., Köhler, S., & Fritsche, I. (2024). From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy. *British Journal of Social Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12811

Bloodhart, B., Swim, J. K., & Dicicco, E. (2019). “Be worried, be VERY worried”: preferences for and impacts of negative emotional climate change communication. *Frontiers in Communication*, **3**, 63.

Bosello, F., & Parrado, R. (2022). Climate change impacts and market-driven adaptation: The costs of inaction including market rigidities. In *Climate and development* (pp. 137–175). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811240553_0006

Bosone, L., Chevrier, M., Chaurand, N., & Collange, J. (2024). Sharing an opinion motivates acting for it together: Identity dynamics influence citizens' intentions to individually and collectively act for the environment. *Identity*, **1–15**. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2024.2046876

Bosone, L., Thiriot, S., Chevrier, M., Rocci, A., & Zenasni, F. (2024). Visioning sustainable futures: Exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a decarbonated world. *Global Environmental Psychology*, 2, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11105

Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., ... Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. *Global Environmental Change*, 62, Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061

Briscoe, M. D., Givens, J. E., Hazboun, S. O., & Krannich, R. S. (2019). At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US Intermountain West. *Environmental Sociology*, **5** (4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2019.1628333

Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2015). Hand in hand: Public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation. *PloS One*, **10**(4), Article e0124843.

Bukchin, S., & Kerret, D. (2020). Character strengths and sustainable technology adoption by smallholder farmers. *Heliyon*, 6(8), Article e04694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04694

Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Gerbino, M., Paciello, M., & Vecchio, G. M. (2006). Looking for adolescents' well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. *Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences*, **15**(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00002013

Chapman, D. A., Lickel, B., & Markowitz, E. M. (2017). Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. *Nature Climate Change*, **7**(12), 850–852. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0021-9

Chevrier, M., Bosone, L., Zenasni, F., & Delhomme, P. (2025). The role of collective positive prospection in motivating social change: A scoping review of methods and findings. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, Article 102576.

Chevrier, M., Delhomme, P., Zenasni, F., & Bosone, L. (2024). Integrating utopian constructs: A preliminary investigation of their similarities and predictive power on social change intentions. *Sustainability*, **16**(19), 8320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198320

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

Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **69**, Article 101434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434

Coelho, F., Pereira, M. C., Cruz, L., Simões, P., & Barata, E. (2017). Affect and the adoption of pro-environmental behaviour: A structural model. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **54**, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.008

Cohen-Chen, S., & Van Zomeren, M. (2018). Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, **77**, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.016

Contreras, A., Blanchard, M. A., Mouguiama-Daouda, C., & Heeren, A. (2024). When eco-anger (but not eco-anxiety nor eco-sadness) makes you change! A temporal network approach to the emotional experience of climate change. *Journal of Anxiety Disorders*, **102**, Article 102822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102822

Cruz, S. M. (2017). The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, **53**, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.010

D'Argembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2004). Phenomenal characteristics influenced with projecting oneself back into the past and forward into the future: Influence of valence and temporal distance. *Consciousness and Cognition*, **13**(4), 844–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.007

Daysh, S., Thomas, E. F., Lizzio-Wilson, M., Bird, L., & Wenzel, M. (2024). "The Future Will Be Green, or Not at All": How positive (utopian) and negative (dystopian) thoughts about the future shape collective climate action. *Global Environmental Psychology*, 2, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11153

Deschenes, O., & Greenstone, M. (2011). Climate change, mortality, and adaptation: Evidence from annual fluctuations in weather in the US. *American Economic Journal: Applied Economics*, **3**(4), 152–185.

Diaz, D., & Moore, F. (2017). Quantifying the economic risks of nature change. *Nature Climate Change*, **7**(11), 774–782. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3411

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

Dogan, T., Totan, T., & Sapmaz, F. (2013). The role of self-esteem, psychological well-being, emotional self-efficacy, and affect balance on happiness: A path model. *European Scientific Journal*, **9**(20).

Ejelöv, E., Hansla, A., Bergquist, M., & Nilsson, A. (2018). Regulating emotional responses to climate change—a construal level perspective. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **9**, 629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00629

Ekpe, L., Sherman, A., & Ofoegbu, E. D. (2023). Restoring resilience through joy: The pursuit of happiness in the midst of unprecedented times. *Equity in Education and Society*, **2**(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/27526461231154012

ElHaffar, G., Durif, F., & Dubé, L. (2020). Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **275**, Article 122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556

Ettinger, J., Walton, P., Painter, J., & DiBlasti, T. (2021). Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. *Climatic Change*, **164**(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. *Behavior research methods*, **39**(2), 175–191.

Feicht, T., Wittmann, M., Jose, G., Mock, A., Von Hirschhausen, E., & Esch, T. (2013). Evaluation of a seven-week web-based happiness training to improve psychological well-being, reduce stress, and enhance mindfulness and flourishing: A randomized controlled occupational health study. *Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine*, **2013**(1), Article 676953. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/676953

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. *Psychological science*, **22**(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911

Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. *Science Communication*, **38**(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941

Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. *Risk Analysis*, **38**(3), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868

Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Ferguson, A., O'Brien, L. V., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2018). Functions of utopia: How utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, **44**(5), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217748604

Fielding, D., Matthews, R., Kemp, E. Z., & Hinze, D. (2014). Review of implications of land use change on climate change mitigation and adaptation. *CxC Report*.

Fieulaine, N., & Martinez, F. (2010). Time under control: Time perspective and desire for control in substance use. *Addictive Behaviors*, **35**(8), 799–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.03.022

Geiger, N., Dwyer, T., & Swim, J. K. (2023). Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **14**, Article 1139427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139427

Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Ballew, M. T., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Identifying the most important predictors of support for climate policy in the United States. *Behavioural Public Policy*, **5**(4), 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.39
Grau, M. (2025). Beyond "Hope": Constructive anger as a force in sustained climate action. *Pastoral Psychology*, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01196-x

Grimmer, M., & Miles, M. P. (2017). With the best of intentions: A large sample test of the intention-behaviour gap in pro-environmental consumer behaviour. *International Journal of Consumer Studies*, *41*(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12290

Haltinner, K., & Sarathchandra, D. (2018). Climate change skepticism as a psychological coping strategy. *Sociology Compass*, 12(6), Article e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12586

Hamann, K. R., & Reese, G. (2020). My influence on the world (of others): Goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro-environmental behavior. *Journal of Social Issues*, 76(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12369

Hamann, K. R., Wullenkord, M. C., Reese, G., & Van Zomeren, M. (2024). Believing that we can change our world for the better: A Triple-A (Agent-Action-Aim) Framework of self-efficacy beliefs in the context of collective social and ecological aims. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 28(1), 11–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088683231178056

Heeren, A., Mouguiama-Daouda, C., & Contreras, A. (2022). On climate anxiety and the threat it may pose to daily life functioning and adaptation: A study among European and African French-speaking participants. *Climatic Change*, 173(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03402-2

Hine, D. W., Phillips, W. J., Cooksey, R., Reser, J. P., Nunn, P., Marks, A. D., ... Watt, S. E. (2016). Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change? *Global Environmental Change*, 36, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.002

Hoffmann, C. (2019). Estimating the benefits of adaptation to extreme climate events, focusing on nonmarket damages. *Ecological Economics*, 164, Article 106250.

Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. *Global Environmental Change*, 39, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003

Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2020). Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. *Social Issues and Policy Review*, 14(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058

Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., McStay, R., Reser, J. P., Bradley, G. L., & Greenaway, K. H. (2015). Evidence for motivated control: Understanding the paradoxical link between threat and efficacy beliefs about climate change. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, *42*, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.003

Huang, L., Wen, Y., & Gao, J. (2020). What ultimately prevents the pro-environmental behavior? An in-depth and extensive study of the behavioral costs. *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*, 158, Article 104747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104747

Innocenti, M., Santarelli, G., Lombardi, G. S., Ciabini, L., Zjalic, D., Di Russo, M., & Cadeddu, C. (2023). How can climate change anxiety induce both pro-environmental behaviours and eco-paralysis? The mediating role of general self-efficacy. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 20(4), 3085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043085

Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N: q hypothesis. *Structural equation modeling*, 10(1), 128–141.

Kuriuki, D. W., & Kuria, J. M. (2023). Potential for transition to low-carbon urban road transport in developing countries: Insights from literature. *International Journal of Advanced Research*, 6(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.37284/ijar.6.1.1084

Kashima, Y., & Fernando, J. (2020). Utopia and ideology in cultural dynamics. *Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences*, 34, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.002

Kasser, T. (2017). Living both well and sustainably: A review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences*, 375(2095), Article 20160369. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0369

Kharrazi, A., & Kakuwa, M. (2017). Scenario projects in Japanese government: Strategic approaches for overcoming psychological and institutional barriers. *Futures*, 86, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.08.003

Kishita, Y., Ohishi, Y., Uwasu, M., Kuroda, M., Takeda, H., & Hara, K. (2016). Evaluating the life cycle CO2 emissions and costs of thermoelectric generators for passenger automobiles: A scenario analysis. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 126, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.121

Kleres, J., & Wettergren, Å. (2017). Fear, hope, anger, and guilt in climate activism. *Social Movement Studies*, 16(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1344546

Kothe, E. J., Ling, M., North, M., Klas, A., Mullan, B. A., & Novoradovskaya, L. (2019). Protection motivation theory and pro-environmental behaviour: A systematic mapping review. *Australian Journal of Psychology*, 71(4), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12271

Lalot, F., Ahvenharju, S., & Bishop, P. C. (2024). The seeds of tomorrow: Investigating adolescent perception of the future with the Futures Consciousness Scale for Adolescents. *Futures*, 162, Article 103419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103419

Lange, F. (2024). What is measured in pro-environmental behavior research? *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, , Article 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102381

Lavelle, M. J., Rau, H., & Fahy, F. (2015). Different shades of green? Unpacking habitual and occasional pro-environmental behaviour. *Global Environmental Change*, 35, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.021

Lee, P. S., Sung, Y. H., Wu, C. C., Ho, L. C., & Chiou, W. B. (2020). Using episodic future thinking to pre-experience climate change increases pro-environmental behavior. *Environment and Behavior*, 52(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518790590

Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2009). Internet versus paper-and-pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: Equivalence testing of participant responses to health-related messages. *Australian Journal of Psychology*, 61(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530802105865

Lindwall, M., Barkoukis, V., Grano, C., Lucidi, F., Raudsepp, L., Liukkonen, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). Method effects: The problem with negatively versus positively keyed items. *Journal of personality assessment*, 94(2), 196–204.

Loomis, D. K., & Paterson, S. (2018). A comparison of data collection methods: Mail versus online surveys. *Journal of Leisure Research*, 49(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022216.2018.1494418

Luo, S. X., Van Horen, F., Millet, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2022). What we talk about when we talk about hope: A prototype analysis. *Emotion*, 22(4), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000821

Mani, Z. A., Khorram-Manesh, A., & Goniewicz, K. (2024). Global health impacts of wildfire disasters from 2000 to 2023: A comprehensive analysis of mortality and injuries. *Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness*, 18, Article e230.

Marlon, J. R., Bloodhart, B., Ballew, M. T., Rolfe-Redding, J., Roser-Renouf, C., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019). How hope and doubt affect climate change mobilization. *Frontiers in Communication*, 4, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005

Matthews, T., Raymond, C., Foster, J., Baldwin, J. W., Ivanovich, C., Kong, Q., ... Horton, R. M. (2025). Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events. *Nature Reviews Earth & Environment*, 1–18.

McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the 'psychological distance' of climate change: An integrative review. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 44, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003

Mendelsohn, R. (2003). Assessing the market damages from climate change. *Global Climate Change*. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843767138.00011

Meyer, A. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behaviour? Evidence from Europe. *Ecological Economics*, 116, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.018

Millgram, Y., Joormann, J., Huppert, J. D., & Tamir, M. (2015). Sad as a matter of choice? Emotion-regulation goals in depression. *Psychological Science*, 26(8), 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615583295

Monroe, A. E., Ainsworth, S. E., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Fearing the future? Future-oriented thought produces aversion to risky investments, trust, and immorality. *Social Cognition*, 35(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.1.66

Morel, H. E., & Boldero, J. (2017). Designing interventions that last: A classification of environmental behaviors in relation to the activities, costs, and effort involved for adoption and maintenance. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 8, 1874. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01874

Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change*, 7(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403

Muleta, T. N. (2021). Climate change scenario analysis for Baro-Akobo river basin, Southwestern Ethiopia. *Environmental Systems Research*, 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-021-00225-5

Myers, T. A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Maibach, E. (2023). Emotional responses to climate change information and their effects on policy support. *Frontiers in Climate*, 5, Article 1135450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1135450

Neumayer, E., & Plümper, T. (2017). Robustness tests for quantitative research. Cambridge University Press.

Nguyen, H. V., Le, M. T. T., Pham, C. H., & Cox, S. S. (2024). Happiness and pro-environmental consumption behaviors. *Journal of Economics and Development*, 26(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-07-2021-0116

O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). 'Fear won't do it' promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. *Science Communication*, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201

Oettingen, G., Pak, H. J., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 80(5), 736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.736

Ogunbode, C. A., Doran, R., Hanss, D., Ojala, M., Salmela-Aro, K., van den Broek, K. L., ... Martinez-Buelvas, L. (2022). Climate anxiety, pro-environmental action and wellbeing: Antecedents and outcomes of negative emotional responses to climate change in 28 countries. *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, 84(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/yn6tc

Ogunbode, C. A., Liu, Y., & Tausch, N. (2017). The moderating role of political affiliation in the link between flooding experience and preparedness to reduce energy use. *Climatic Change*, 145, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2089-7

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. (2015). Hope in the face of climate change: Associations with environmental engagement and student perceptions of teachers' emotion communication style and future orientation. *The Journal of Environmental Education*, 46(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1021662

Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. *Futures*, 94, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.10.004

Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. *Journal*
of personality and social psychology, 91(4), 730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730

Panno, A., De Cristofaro, V., Oliveti, C., Carrus, G., & Donati, M. A. (2021). Personality and environmental outcomes: The role of moral anger in channeling climate change action and pro-environmental behavior. *Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21* (1), 853–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12254

Peles, S. B., & Kerret, D. (2021). Sustainable technology adoption by smallholder farmers and goal-oriented hope. *Climate & Development, 13*(10), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1872477

Petkanopopoulos, K., Chryssochoou, X., Zacharia, M., & Pavlopoulos, V. (2022). Collective disadvantage in the context of socioeconomic crisis in Greece: The role of system-directed anger, politicians-directed anger and hope in normative and non-normative collective action participation. *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32*(4), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2580

Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. *Health psychology review, 7*, S8-S31. sup1.

Pugatch, T. (2019). Tropical storms and mortality under climate change. *World Development, 117*, 172–182.

Rode, J. B., Dent, A. L., & Ditto, P. H. (2023). Climate change consensus messages may cause reactance in conservatives, but there is no meta-analytic evidence that they backfire. *Environmental Communication, 17*(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2101501

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67*(2), 206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.206

Russell, S. V., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2021). Pulling on heartstrings: Three studies of the effectiveness of emotionally framed communication to encourage workplace pro-environmental behavior. *Sustainability, 13*(18), Article 10161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810161

Samaddar, S., Chatterjee, R., Misra, B., & Tatano, H. (2014). Outcome-expectancy and self-efficacy: Reasons or results of flood preparedness intention? *International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 8*, 91–99.

Sangervo, J., Jylhä, K. M., & Pihkala, P. (2022). Climate anxiety: Conceptual considerations, and connections with climate hope and action. *Global Environmental Change, 76*, Article 102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102569

Sardesai, S., Stute, M., Fornasier, R., Kalaitzi, D., Barros, A. C., & Muerza, V. (2021). Future scenario settings for supply chains. *Next Generation Supply Chains: A Roadmap for Research and Innovation*, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63505-3_3

Skurka, C., Myrick, J. G., & Yang, Y. (2023). Fanning the flames or burning out? Testing competing hypotheses about repeated exposure to threatening climate change messages. *Climatic Change, 176*(5), 52.

Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. *Health Psychology Review, 8*(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710

Spampatti, T., & Doell, K. C. (2025). Emotional reactions to climate change predict climate-friendly outcomes in 63 countries. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3wzjc_v1.

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.joclim.2021.100003

Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111*(52), 18414–18421. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417144111

Taylor, D. (2022). Climate anxiety, fatalism and the capacity to act. In *New interdisciplinary perspectives On and beyond autonomy* (pp. 150–164). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003331780-13.

Troy, C. L., Norman, M., Kim, N., Skurka, C., & Myrick, J. G. (2024). Can you picture it? Effects of positive and negative depictions of climate futures on climate action intentions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 96*, Article 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102312

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.

Van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41*, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012

Van Valkengoed, A. M., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2022). Relationships between climate change perceptions and climate adaptation actions: Policy support, information seeking, and behaviour. *Climatic Change, 171*(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03338-7

Van Valkengoed, A. M., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2024). From believing in climate change to adapting to climate change: The role of risk perception and efficacy beliefs. *Risk Analysis, 44*(3), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14193

Van Valkengoed, A., & Steg, L. (2019a). *The psychology of climate change adaptation*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108595438

Van Valkengoed, A. M., & Steg, L. (2019b). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. *Nature Climate Change, 9*(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y

Van Valkengoed, A. M., Steg, L., & Perlaviciute, G. (2023). The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated. *One Earth, 6*(4), 362–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.03.006

Vogelaar, R., van Dijk, E., & van Dijk, W. W. (2024). The appraisal patterns and response types of enthusiasm: A comparison with joy and hope. *Cognition & Emotion, 1*, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2430399

Voški, A., Wong-Parodi, G., & Ardoin, N. M. (2023). A new planetary affective science framework for eco-emotions: Findings on eco-anger, eco-grief, and eco-anxiety. *Global Environmental Psychology, 1*, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11465

Wagner, V., Flores-Aranda, J., Villela Guilhon, A. C., Knight, S., & Bertrand, K. (2022). How do past, present and future weigh into trajectories of precarity? The time perspectives of young psychoactive substance users living in situations of social precarity in Montreal. *Qualitative Health Research, 32*(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211051671

Wang, S., Leviston, Z., Hurlstone, M., Lawrence, C., & Walker, I. (2018). Emotions predict policy support: Why it matters how people feel about climate change. *Global Environmental Change, 50*, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.002

Wenzel, M., Love, J., & Thomas, E. F. (2024). Imagining a positive future: desirability and possibility as possible pathways to Hope and commitment to collective action. *Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 44*(1), 5–37.

Wisting, N. (2025). "Anger is a good motivator": A qualitative analysis of how climate activists' emotions. *Experiences and Perceptions of Soft Repression Impacts Their Activism*.

Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. *Health education & behavior, 27*(5), 591–615.

Woodhall, S. C., Landeg, O., & Kovats, S. (2021). Public health and climate change: How are local authorities preparing for the health impacts of our changing climate? *Journal of Public Health, 43*(2), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz098

Yriguez, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., & Mackay, C. M. (2022). Access to environmental cognitive alternatives predicts pro-environmental activist behavior. *Environment and Behavior, 54*(3), 712–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013965211065008

Yriguez, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M., & Neufeld, S. D. (2020). Imagining a sustainable world: Measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72*, Article 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101523

Xie, B., Brewer, M. B., Hayes, B. K., McDonald, R. I., & Newell, B. R. (2019). Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65*, Article 101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331

Yorkovsky, Y., & Zysberg, L. (2021). Personal, social, environmental: Future orientation and attitudes mediate the associations between locus of control and pro-environmental behaviour. *Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 8*(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.8-2-1

Zelenski, J. M., & Desrochers, J. E. (2021). Can positive and self-transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior? *Current Opinion in Psychology, 42*, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.02.009

Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. *Journal of Social Issues, 56*(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177

Zhang, J., Xu, W., Liao, X., Zong, S., & Liu, B. (2021). Global mortality risk assessment from river flooding under climate change. *Environmental Research Letters, 16*(6), Article 064036.

Ziervogel, G., New, M., Archer van Garderen, E., Midgley, G., Taylor, A., Hamann, R., ... Warburton, M. (2014). Climate change impacts and adaptation in South Africa. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5*(5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.295

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2015). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), *Time perspective theory; review, research and application* (pp. 17–55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2.

Further reading

Van Valkengoed, A. M., Steg, L., & De Jonge, P. (2023). Climate anxiety: A research agenda inspired by emotion research. *Emotion Review, 15*(4), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231193752