Toward a unified understanding of climate anxiety: Examining measures of climate and eco-anxiety

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339562 December 29, 2025 4 / 19 exhibit low symptom levels and, thus, skewed distributions. This may partly explain why these studies revealed small to moderate relations between climate anxiety and symptoms of depression and anxiety [9,12,20,21,24,27–29]. Moreover, the selection of such validation constructs, particularly when they are not clearly labeled to establish discriminant validity, suggests a tendency to pathologize climate and eco-anxiety. However, climate anxiety is a reaction to the existential threat of climate change and may therefore represent an adaptive reaction that can promote pro-environmental behavior [9]. Given this, neuroticism may represent a more fitting nomologically related covariate for establishing discriminant validity in the general population. Neuroticism, as a stable personality trait, applies across general and clinical populations, and the self-reported measures of depression and anxiety are mostly redundant to neuroticism (r = .71 in [30]; r = .65–.80 in [31]). Moreover, neuroticism refers to a broad, higher-order personality trait that captures the dimensional opposite of emotional stability and is characterized by a general tendency to experience negative affect, heightened emotional reactivity, and difficulties with stress regulation [32]. As a stable disposition, it shapes how individuals respond to a wide range of envi- ronmental and internal stressors. Importantly, such broad personality traits can influence the frequency and intensity of

domain-specific emotional reactions [33]. Thus, examining associations between neuroticism and climate- and eco-anxiety does not suggest conceptual overlap but helps clarify whether climate-specific anxieties merely reflect general negative affectivity or constitute a distinct set of concerns tied to climate and environmental threat. Consequently, assessing the correlation between climate anxiety, eco-anxiety, and neuroticism in the general population is an important next step in the validation endeavor. Beyond constructs related to the neuroticism dimension, other covariates are essential for understanding climate anxi- ety. Currently, climate and eco-anxiety are primarily defined based on the item content of the existing scales [6,12] and still lack a clear theoretical definition [10]. This lack of conceptual clarity is problematic, as climate anxiety is a broad term that is used differently across various discourses; it can refer to an emotion akin to fear and worry, strong psychological symp- toms, or a phenomenon described by existential or psychodynamic psychologists [11]. One way to reduce this ambiguity is to examine its overlap with other relevant constructs, such as climate change–related risk perception. Eco-anxiety has been suggested to heighten sensitivity to environmental challenges and encourage cognitive engage- ment with them [10]. Supporting this idea, climate and eco-anxiety show a substantial correlation with climate change– related risk perception [20]. Additionally, it has been debated whether these forms of anxiety function as practical anxiety

[10], potentially motivating climate action. Perceived self-efficacy may play a crucial role in determining whether climate and eco-anxiety foster engagement or lead to disengagement. However, some argue that climate and eco-anxiety may induce a paralyzing fear response [34], possibly contributing to climate change–related fatigue. Such fatigue would typically mean a state of weariness, exhaustion, or decreased motivation associated with issues or discussions related to climate change. It could manifest as behavioral fatigue (a reduced willingness to take action) or informational fatigue (feeling overwhelmed or disinterested in hearing more about the issue; cf. pandemic fatigue [35,36]). To better understand the nature of climate and eco-anxiety and their functional covariates, we examined their association with risk perception of climate change–related health risks, self-efficacy to show individual emission-reducing behaviors, and climate-related fatigue. Finally, all validation efforts require criterion validation. Climate and eco-anxiety are hypothesized to explain individ- ual differences in climate mitigation behaviors. Earlier work found small to moderate correlations with pro-environmental behavior (CAS [6,29]; HEAS [37]; another eco-anxiety measure [38]). However, these studies often assessed a limited range of behaviors, frequently omitting high-impact actions. For example, while household waste recycling has been examined [29], behaviors with a significantly larger effect on individual CO2 emissions have been overlooked, such as

heated home square footage per person or electricity consumption for air conditioning, depending on typical tempera- ture differences across locations. Thus, correlations with high-impact behaviors will shed light on the question of whether greater climate or eco-anxiety is related to more relevant pro-environmental behavior. Beyond individual behavior, other relevant criteria include acceptance of environmental policies and willingness to engage in political participation.