Abstract
Objective
Global warming is increasingly recognized as a significant current issue, and its consequences are becoming more serious over time. However, the environmental effects of global warming on children and adolescents have not yet been sufficiently understood. Our study examined metacognition, mental toughness, and self-efficacy as psychological predictors of eco-anxiety in adolescents using a structural equation modeling framework.
Methods
A total of 334 adolescents aged 15–17 years completed standardized self-report measures assessing eco-anxiety, metacognition, mental toughness, and self-efficacy.
Results
Eco-anxiety was analyzed within its four-factor structure to identify cognitive vulnerability and resilience-related mechanisms. Mental toughness was negatively associated with emotional symptoms (β=-0.288, p<0.001) and personal impact concerns (β=-0.259, p< 0.001). In contrast, metacognitive processes were positively associated with rumination (β=0.532, p<0.001) and emotional symptoms (β=0.307, p<0.001). Self-efficacy showed a differential pattern, being positively related to behavioral symptoms (β=0.194, p=0.003) while negatively associated with personal impact concerns (β=-0.156, p=0.007). Girl gender was associated with higher rumination (β=0.164, p=0.004).
Conclusion
These findings indicate that eco-anxiety in adolescents represents a multidimensional construct shaped by distinct cognitive vulnerability and resilience-related mechanisms. Metacognitive processes, mental toughness, self-efficacy, and sociodemographic characteristics may be important relevant variables in understanding individual differences in eco-anxiety among adolescents. In our world where the challenges of climate change persist, it is recommended that future studies further investigate the potential benefits, for adolescents, of preventive mental health interventions targeting metacognitive processes, mental resilience, and self-efficacy related to eco-anxiety.
Keywords: Eco-anxiety, Mental toughness, Metacognition, Self-efficacy
INTRODUCTION
The climate crisis, whose impact is increasing globally, causes various adverse changes in environmental conditions, and these changes are reflected in individuals’ emotional experiences in different ways. Growing evidence suggests that the anxiety individuals feel in response to ecological threats caused by climate change and the guilt arising from their belief that they are not effective enough against these threats can lead to impairments in functioning. However, in some individuals, these feelings can trigger a desire to take action based on environmental responsibility and encourage pro-environmental behaviors, indicating a spectrum of possible responses [1,2]. Beyond the direct and indirect consequences of climate change, heightened awareness of environmental issues has been identified as a potential trigger for eco-anxiety [3]. From a developmental perspective, adolescence is a fragile period during which, in addition to physiological and hormonal changes, neurocognitive development continues and the prevalence of new psychiatric disorders increases. It has been noted that, in this period, if adequate adaptation and preventive interventions against risks associated with climate change are not implemented, mental health may be adversely affected [4]. Studies conducted in different geographical regions examining the impact of climate change on this vulnerable group show that this effect varies regionally. In particular, climate anxiety is more frequently associated with themes of uncertainty about the future, hopelessness and institutional insecurity in adolescents in high-income countries, while depressive symptoms, intense feelings of helplessness and daily functional dysfunctions have been reported more prominently in adolescents in regions where the physical consequences of the climate crisis due to drought and resource loss are more directly experienced. These regional differences suggest that eco-anxiety is not merely a result of environmental awareness; rather, it is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by sociocultural context, degree of exposure, and psychological protective factors [5,6].
Metacognition is defined as an individual’s awareness and evaluation of their own thinking processes, and it constitutes a fundamental structure for many higher-level functions, ranging from understanding emotions to situation analysis, decision-making, problem-solving, and coping with difficulties [7]. In particular, perceptions related to threats or negative metacognitive beliefs based on a loss of control, along with difficulties in managing thoughts, contribute to the maintenance of anxiety and are associated with various anxiety disorders [7,8].
Resilience is a broader protective process that refers to an individual’s capacity to recover, regain balance, and maintain functionality following stress, trauma, or adverse life events [9]. While mental toughness not only involves adapting to changing circumstances or recovering after difficulties, but also encompasses the ability to remain goal-oriented under stress and pressure, to sustain motivation, to maintain self-control, and to actively strive to improve performance while challenges persist [10].
Protective psychosocial factors such as mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, self-efficacy, and effective coping methods play an important role in reducing the severity of mental problems by attenuating individuals’ responses to stressful life conditions [11]. The concept of self-efficacy proposed by Bandura [12] refers to an individual’s belief that they can successfully perform a specific task, cope rationally with difficulties, and produce solutions. A prior study demonstrated that increased anxiety levels are associated with decreased self-efficacy and that there is a negative interaction between anxiety and self-efficacy [13].
In recent years, there has been an increase in research on the effects of eco-anxiety on young people. However, multidimensional model studies that address whether eco-anxiety in youth, which is a developmentally sensitive age group, will remain a source of motivation to take action against climate change or lead to negative psychological outcomes that impair functionality due to maladaptive coping skills, are still lacking. Although metacognition, mental resilience, and self-efficacy are seen in the literature as originating from different theoretical frameworks, these constructs are interconnected in terms of how individuals respond to stress, uncertainty, and perceived threats. Considering that eco-anxiety encompasses emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to environmental threats, we thought that examining these constructs simultaneously could enable a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological factors associated with eco-anxiety in adolescence. Based on this, our study aimed not only to report the demographic distribution of eco-anxiety, but also to examine the multidimensional predictive roles of metacognition, mental toughness, and self-efficacy on the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral impact domains of eco-anxiety in adolescents. Our study, which was conducted using scales that have been validated in our country, is considered important in the eco-anxiety literature as it demonstrates the consistency of universal psychological mechanisms across different cultural contexts. Additionally, this study aims to identify cognitive vulnerability factors that may contribute to differences in individual levels of eco-anxiety. It is thought that the findings we will obtain may be a guide for potential preventive mental health strategies against eco-anxiety.
METHODS
Data source and sample
This cross-sectional and correlational investigation examined the relationships between eco-anxiety, mental toughness, metacognitive processes, and self-efficacy in adolescents. The study was conducted between May 15, 2024, and November 15, 2024. Participants aged 15–17 years were recruited using a consecutive sampling approach from adolescents presenting to the pediatric outpatient clinics of Diyarbakır Pediatric Disease Hospital, Diyarbakır, Türkiye, for routine medical consultations unrelated to psychiatric conditions during the study period. All eligible adolescents were invited to participate in the order of their presentation and were consecutively included in the study, thereby minimizing selection bias. Inclusion required being within the target age range, having adequate literacy to complete the questionnaires. Adolescents were excluded if they had a history of psychiatric diagnosis identified through medical records or self-report, if they left more than 20% of the questionnaire items unanswered, showed inconsistent response patterns, or did not complete the consent process. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Health Sciences Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital (Approval Number: 18/19.04.2024). This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. A voluntary consent form was signed by all participants and their parents.
Outcome measures
Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and standardized self-report instruments assessing eco-anxiety, mental toughness, self-efficacy, and metacognitive processes.
Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale
The 13-item Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13) developed by Hogg et al. [14] was used to assess individuals’ anxiety levels regarding environmental threats over the past two weeks. This instrument includes four domains: emotional responses to environmental threats, repetitive negative thinking related to ecological events (rumination), behavioral difficulties such as problems in sleep or concentration, and concerns about one’s personal contribution to environmental problems. Higher total scores reflect greater levels of eco-anxiety. The Turkish adaptation demonstrated strong internal reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.91 for the total score and subscale coefficients ranging between 0.83 and 0.86 [15].
Self-Efficacy Scale for children
Perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the scale originally developed by Muris [16] and subsequently validated in Turkish by Telef and Karaca [17]. The instrument evaluates adolescents’ perceived competence across social, academic, and emotional domains. Higher scores indicate stronger self-efficacy beliefs. The Turkish version showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.86).
Mental Toughness Scale for adolescents
Mental toughness was measured using the scale developed by McGeown et al., consisting of 18 items distributed across six dimensions: commitment, challenge, life control, emotional control, confidence in abilities, and interpersonal confidence. Possible scores range from 18 to 72, with higher scores representing greater mental toughness. A Turkish adaptation study reported an internal consistency coefficient of 0.85 [18,19].
Metacognition Scale child adolescent form
Metacognitive characteristics were evaluated using the child–adolescent version of the Metacognition Questionnaire developed by Bacow et al. [20] and adapted into Turkish by Irak [21]. The scale assesses four domains: positive metacognitive beliefs, negative metacognitive beliefs, superstition–punishment–responsibility beliefs, and cognitive monitoring. Higher scores indicate more dysfunctional metacognitive tendencies. The Turkish version demonstrated excellent reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93 for the total score and subscale coefficients ranging from 0.72 to 0.93.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 31.0 (IBM Corp.) and RStudio (lavaan package 0.6-21) for structural equation modeling (SEM). Distributional characteristics of the data were evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, skewness and kurtosis coefficients, and visual inspection of histograms and Q–Q plots. Histogram and Q–Q plot examinations indicated an approximately normal distribution, and skewness and kurtosis values were within the acceptable range of ±1. However, owing to deviations from normality within gender subgroups, the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test was used for gender-based group comparisons. Additionally, adjustment was performed using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) procedure, and both unadjusted and FDR-adjusted p values were reported. Relationships among study variables were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients. To examine the construct validity of the HEAS-13, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted at the item level to test the original four-factor structure (emotional symptoms, behavioral symptoms, rumination, and anxiety about personal impact). Given the ordinal nature of the scale items, the weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimator was employed. Subsequently, SEM was applied to examine the direct and indirect relationships between metacognition, mental toughness, and self-efficacy and the subdimensions of eco-anxiety. SEM was preferred as it allows the simultaneous evaluation of complex relationships between multiple predictors and latent constructs. After observing gender differences in the selected eco-anxiety dimensions and related psychological variables, additional exploratory parallel mediation analyses were conducted to examine whether these relationships could be explained by metacognition, mental resilience, and self-efficacy. Sample adequacy for SEM was evaluated by considering model complexity and criteria recommended in the literature. The 334 participants included in the study were considered sufficient to obtain stable parameter estimates and reliable model fit statistics for the present model. Indirect effects were tested using bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on 5,000 resamples. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including χ², Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with commonly accepted cutoff values. Multicollinearity was assessed prior to modeling, and no issues were detected (correlations <0.70; Variance Inflation Factor [VIF] <2.5). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS
At the beginning of the study, 21 out of 355 participants were excluded owing to the exclusion criteria. The study continued with 334 participants, consisting of 162 boys (48.5%) and 172 girls (51.5%). The mean age of girls was 15.65±1.15 years, and the mean age of boys was 15.83±0.81 years, with no statistically significant difference in age between gender (p=0.097). Twenty-eight participants (8.4%) had low socioeconomic status (SES), 163 (48.8%) had middle SES, and 143 (42.8%) had high SES.
Gender comparisons revealed that girls had significantly higher scores on the behavioral symptoms subdimension of eco-anxiety (FDR-adjusted p=0.005). Girls also scored significantly higher on cognitive monitoring (FDR-adjusted p=0.018), SPR (FDR-adjusted p=0.005), negative metacognitive beliefs (FDR-adjusted p=0.005), and total metacognition score (FDR-adjusted p=0.005). In contrast, boys scored significantly higher on the emotional self-efficacy subdimension (FDR-adjusted p=0.008) (Table 1). Although differences were observed for total eco-anxiety scores and the commitment subdimension of mental toughness in the unadjusted analyses, these associations did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of eco-anxiety, mental toughness, metacognition, and self-efficacy scores by gender
| Variable | Gender | N | Mean±SD | Median | z | p | FDR-adjusted p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEAS-13 total | Girls | 172 | 1.24±0.69 | 1.2 | -2.348 | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Boys | 162 | 1.07±0.50 | 1.1 | ||||
| HEAS-13 emotional symptoms | Girls | 172 | 1.42±0.84 | 1.25 | -1.552 | 0.121 | 0.254 |
| Boys | 162 | 1.29±0.78 | 1.0 | ||||
| HEAS-13 personal impact concern | Girls | 172 | 0.83±0.69 | 1.0 | -1.112 | 0.266 | 0.372 |
| Boys | 162 | 0.80±0.77 | 0.7 | ||||
| HEAS-13 rumination | Girls | 172 | 1.46±0.93 | 1.3 | -1.247 | 0.212 | 0.342 |
| Boys | 162 | 1.33±0.87 | 1.3 | ||||
| HEAS-13 behavioral symptoms | Girls | 172 | 1.17±0.82 | 1.0 | -4.186 | <0.001 | 0.005* |
| Boys | 162 | 0.79±0.60 | 0.7 | ||||
| MT–challenge | Girls | 172 | 8.60±1.73 | 9.0 | -0.290 | 0.772 | 0.811 |
| Boys | 162 | 8.46±1.63 | 9.0 | ||||
| MT–interpersonal trust | Girls | 172 | 7.97±2.24 | 8.0 | -0.930 | 0.353 | 0.412 |
| Boys | 162 | 7.79±1.86 | 8.0 | ||||
| MT–confidence in abilities | Girls | 172 | 8.66±2.32 | 9.0 | -1.633 | 0.103 | 0.240 |
| Boys | 162 | 9.02±2.07 | 9.0 | ||||
| MT–emotional control | Girls | 172 | 6.09±1.91 | 6.0 | -0.203 | 0.839 | 0.839 |
| Boys | 162 | 6.12±1.88 | 6.0 | ||||
| MT–life control | Girls | 172 | 8.03±1.59 | 8.0 | -1.338 | 0.181 | 0.317 |
| Boys | 162 | 8.18±1.63 | 8.0 | ||||
| MT–commitment | Girls | 172 | 8.15±1.97 | 8.0 | -1.947 | 0.048 | 0.126 |
| Boys | 162 | 8.60±1.98 | 9.0 | ||||
| MT–total score | Girls | 172 | 47.35±7.91 | 48.0 | -0.996 | 0.319 | 0.411 |
| Boys | 162 | 48.31±6.68 | 48.0 | ||||
| Positive metacognitive beliefs | Girls | 172 | 12.24±0.07 | 12.0 | -0.967 | 0.333 | 0.411 |
| Boys | 162 | 12.54±3.61 | 12.0 | ||||
| Metacognitive monitoring | Girls | 172 | 14.85±2.82 | 15.0 | -2.797 | 0.005 | 0.018* |
| Boys | 162 | 13.92±3.14 | 14.0 | ||||
| SPR | Girls | 172 | 11.54±2.75 | 12.0 | -3.241 | 0.001 | 0.005* |
| Boys | 162 | 10.67±2.58 | 10.5 | ||||
| Negative metacognitive beliefs | Girls | 172 | 14.59±3.85 | 15.0 | -4.153 | <0.001 | 0.005* |
| Boys | 162 | 12.76±3.97 | 13.0 | ||||
| Total metacognition score | Girls | 172 | 53.22±9.02 | 54.0 | -3.369 | <0.001 | 0.005* |
| Boys | 162 | 49.95±8.97 | 49.0 | ||||
| Social self-efficacy | Girls | 172 | 23.18±6.73 | 24 | -1.504 | 0.133 | 0.254 |
| Boys | 162 | 22.01±5.64 | 22 | ||||
| Emotional self-efficacy | Girls | 172 | 17.53±6.32 | 16 | -3.062 | 0.002 | 0.008* |
| Boys | 162 | 19.27±5.16 | 20 | ||||
| Academic self-efficacy | Girls | 172 | 19.86±6.80 | 19 | -0.534 | 0.593 | 0.655 |
| Boys | 162 | 19.99±6.05 | 19 | ||||
| Total self-efficacy | Girls | 172 | 60.58±16.11 | 57 | -1.130 | 0.259 | 0.372 |
| Boys | 162 | 61.27±12.27 | 60 |
FDR-adjusted p values were calculated using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure.
p<0.05.
FDR, false discovery rate; HEAS, Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale; MT, mental toughness; SPR, superstitions–punishment–responsibility; SD, standard deviation; z, Mann–Whitney U test statistic.
CFA
To evaluate whether the HEAS-13 retained its proposed four-factor structure—comprising emotional symptoms, behavioral symptoms, repetitive thoughts, and personal impact concern—a CFA was performed at the item level. Because the items were treated as categorical variables, the WLSMV estimator was employed. The analysis demonstrated an excellent fit between the model and the observed data (CFI=0.995; TLI=0.993; RMSEA=0.039; SRMR=0.057). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p<0.001) and ranged from 0.658 to 0.913, indicating strong relationships between the items and their respective latent factors. These findings provide empirical support for the validity of the four-factor measurement structure of the Eco-Anxiety Scale within the present sample (Table 2).
Table 2.
Standardized factor loadings for the four latent factors of the HEAS-13
| Latent factor | Item | Std. loading (β) |
|---|---|---|
| Emotional symptoms | HEAS-1 | 0.814 |
| HEAS-2 | 0.913 | |
| HEAS-3 | 0.814 | |
| HEAS-4 | 0.680 | |
| Behavioral symptoms | HEAS-5 | 0.851 |
| HEAS-6 | 0.853 | |
| HEAS-7 | 0.684 | |
| Personal impact anxiety | HEAS-8 | 0.684 |
| HEAS-9 | 0.834 | |
| HEAS-10 | 0.838 | |
| Rumination | HEAS-11 | 0.658 |
| HEAS-12 | 0.668 | |
| HEAS-13 | 0.809 |
All loadings p<0.001. HEAS, Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale.
SEM was conducted to examine the simultaneous effects of metacognition, mental toughness, self-efficacy, age, and gender on the sub-dimensions of eco-anxiety. The results indicated that the proposed structural model demonstrated an excellent fit to the data (CFI=0.956; TLI=0.967; RMSEA=0.053; SRMR=0.060), suggesting that the model adequately represented the relationships among the variables. Prior to SEM estimation, Pearson correlation analyses among the observed predictor variables were examined. Mental toughness and self-efficacy were moderately and positively correlated (r=0.583, p<0.001). Metacognition showed a weak negative correlation with mental toughness (r=-0.148, p=0.010), whereas its correlation with self-efficacy was negligible and non-significant (r=-0.043, p=0.454) (Table 3). The fact that none of the pairwise correlations exceeded 0.70 and that the VIF values range between 1.01 and 1.50 indicates that there is no problem of multicollinearity. Age and gender were included as covariates based on prior evidence indicating their associations with emotional regulation processes and anxiety-related outcomes during adolescence. SES was also included as a covariate. Because the low-SES group comprised only 28 participants (8.4% of the sample), the low- and middle-SES categories were combined for SEM analyses. Accordingly, SES was entered into the model as a dichotomous variable (0=low/middle SES, 1=high SES).
Table 3.
Correlations between eco-anxiety and psychological variables
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. HEAS-13 total score | - | |||
| 2. Mental toughness total score | -0.326** | |||
| 3. Metacognition total score | 0.411** | -0.148* | - | |
| 4. Self-efficacy total score | -0.105 | 0.583** | -0.043 | - |
All correlations were calculated using Pearson’s correlation analysis.
p<0.05;
p<0.01.
HEAS, Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale; r, Pearson correlation coefficient.
HEAS-13-emotional symptoms
When the predictors of the emotional symptoms dimension of eco-anxiety were examined, mental toughness emerged as a significant negative predictor (β=-0.288, p<0.001), indicating that higher levels of mental toughness were associated with lower emotional eco-anxiety symptoms. In contrast, metacognitive functions were identified as a significant positive predictor (β=0.307, p<0.001), suggesting that increased metacognitive activity was associated with higher emotional distress related to ecological concerns. Overall, the model explained 21.8% of the variance in emotional symptoms (R²=0.218) (Table 4 and Figure 1).
Table 4.
Standardized path coefficients from the structural equation model
| Predictor | Emotional symptoms | Behavioral symptoms | Personal impact anxiety | Rumination |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metacognition | 0.307 (<0.001)*** | 0.100 (0.114) | 0.264 (<0.001)*** | 0.532 (<0.001)*** |
| Mental toughness | -0.288 (<0.001)*** | -0.015 (0.829) | -0.259 (<0.001)*** | -0.103 (0.111) |
| Self-efficacy | 0.013 (0.799) | 0.194 (0.003)** | -0.156 (0.007)** | 0.051 (0.369) |
| Age | 0.035 (0.506) | 0.015 (0.796) | 0.037 (0.486) | -0.104 (0.060) |
| Gender (0=boys, 1=girls) | 0.009 (0.865) | 0.033 (0.592) | 0.009 (0.878) | 0.164 (0.004)** |
| SES (0=low/middle, 1=high) | -0.009 (0.868) | -0.146 (0.021)* | -0.028 (0.611) | -0.036 (0.542) |
| R² | 0.218 | 0.050 | 0.291 | 0.390 |
Values represent standardized regression coefficients (β). p values are presented in parentheses. Gender was coded as 0=boys and 1=girls. Socioeconomic status was coded as 0=low/middle and 1=high. R² indicates the proportion of variance explained in each outcome variable.
p<0.05;
p<0.01;
p<0.001.
SES, socioeconomic status.
Figure 1.
Structural equation model examining the relationships between metacognition, mental toughness, self-efficacy, and dimensions of eco-anxiety in adolescents. Gender was coded as 0=boys and 1=girls. Socioeconomic status (SES) was coded as 0=low/middle and 1=high. SES, socioeconomic status.
HEAS-13-rumination
When the predictors of the recurrent thought (rumination) dimension of eco-anxiety were examined, that metacognitive functions was found to have a significant positive effect (β=0.532, p<0.001). In contrast, mental toughness did not have a significant effect on rumination (β=-0.103, p=0.111). Regarding gender, being girl was associated with significantly higher rumination levels (β=0.164, p=0.004). The model explained 39.0% of the variance in rumination (R²=0.390) (Table 4 and Figure 1).
HEAS-13-anxiety about personal impact
Eco-anxiety’s concern dimension about personal impact was significantly positively predicted by metacognition (β=0.264, p<0.001), while mental toughness (β=-0.259, p<0.001) and self-efficacy (β=-0.156, p=0.007) were found to be a significant negative predictor. The model explained 29% of the variance in this dimension (R²=0.290) (Table 4 and Figure 1).
HEAS-13-behavioral symptoms
It was found that only self-efficacy (β=0.194, p=0.003) positively predicted the behavioral dimension of eco-anxiety. Additionally, it was found that a higher socioeconomic level was significantly negatively associated with behavioral symptoms (β=-0.146, p=0.021). The explained variance of the behavioral sub-dimension in the model was found to be low (R²=0.051) (Table 4 and Figure 1).
According to the parallel multiple mediation model, the total indirect effect of gender on the total eco-anxiety score was found to be statistically significant (β=0.092, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.664, 2.240]). Among the mediator variables, metacognition had a strong and significant indirect effect on the total eco-anxiety score (β=0.067, p=0.001, 95% CI [0.468, 1.730]), while mental toughness showed an indirect effect at a trend level that did not reach statistical significance (β=0.026, p=0.064). After the inclusion of mediator variables in the model, the direct effect of gender on the total eco-anxiety score became non-significant (p=0.219), suggesting that the relationship between gender and eco-anxiety operates through a fully mediated indirect mechanism. All independent and mediator variables in the model explain 20% of the variance in eco-anxiety (R²=0.20). In the analysis conducted for the sub-dimensions of eco-anxiety, statistically significant indirect effects of gender on both emotional and behavioral sub-dimensions via metacognition were observed (emotional: β=0.053, p=0.002, 95% CI [0.157, 0.593]; behavioral: β=0.048, p=0.001, 95% CI [0.113, 0.438]). The absence of a significant direct effect along these paths supports a full mediation model for these sub-dimensions. In the sub-dimension concerning anxiety about personal impact, both the indirect (β=0.088, p=0.001, 95% CI [0.180, 0.656]) and the direct path (B=1.096, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.628, 1.567]) of gender via metacognition were found to be statistically significant. This model indicates that metacognition plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between gender and concern about personal impact. In the parallel mediation analysis, it was observed that neither the direct nor the indirect paths of gender for the rumination sub-dimension were statistically significant. This showed that gender is not explained by the variables of metacognition, mental toughness or self-efficacy (Table 5).
Table 5.
Parallel mediation models examining direct and indirect effects of gender on eco-anxiety dimensions
| Outcome | Effect type | Mediator | B | 95% CI | Std. β | p | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEAS-13 total score | Indirect | Metacognition | 1.048 | 0.468, 1.730 | 0.067 | 0.001 | Significant mediation |
| Mental toughness | 0.403 | 0.014, 0.862 | 0.026 | 0.064 | Trend-level mediation | ||
| Self-efficacy | -0.015 | -0.198, 0.129 | -0.001 | 0.841 | No mediation | ||
| Total indirect | - | 1.436 | 0.664, 2.240 | 0.092 | <0.001 | Significant overall mediation | |
| Direct | - | 0.905 | -0.534, 2.376 | 0.058 | 0.219 | Non-significant direct effect | |
| Emotional symptoms | Indirect | Metacognition | 0.353 | 0.157, 0.593 | 0.053 | 0.002 | Significant mediation |
| Mental toughness | 0.204 | 0.008, 0.424 | 0.030 | 0.053 | Trend-level mediation | ||
| Self-efficacy | -0.006 | -0.067, 0.051 | -0.001 | 0.831 | No mediation | ||
| Total indirect | - | 0.551 | 0.253, 0.863 | 0.082 | 0.001 | Significant overall mediation | |
| Direct | - | 0.104 | -0.535, 0.750 | 0.016 | 0.750 | Non-significant direct effect | |
| Behavioral symptoms | Indirect | Metacognition | 0.260 | 0.113, 0.438 | 0.048 | 0.001 | Significant mediation |
| Mental toughness | 0.140 | 0.006, 0.298 | 0.026 | 0.062 | Trend-level mediation | ||
| Self-efficacy | 0.033 | -0.052, 0.135 | 0.006 | 0.467 | No mediation | ||
| Total indirect | - | 0.433 | 0.163, 0.687 | 0.080 | 0.001 | Significant overall mediation | |
| Direct | - | 0.434 | -0.158, 1.009 | 0.080 | 0.143 | Non-significant direct effect | |
| Personal impact anxiety | Indirect | Metacognition | 0.369 | 0.161, 0.608 | 0.080 | 0.001 | Significant mediation |
| Mental toughness | 0.048 | -0.020, 0.144 | 0.010 | 0.251 | No mediation | ||
| Self-efficacy | -0.010 | -0.072, 0.031 | -0.002 | 0.675 | No mediation | ||
| Total indirect | - | 0.406 | 0.180, 0.656 | 0.088 | 0.001 | Significant indirect pathway | |
| Direct | - | 1.096 | 0.628, 1.567 | 0.238 | <0.001 | Partial mediation | |
| Rumination | Indirect | Metacognition | 0.066 | -0.026, 0.185 | 0.015 | 0.214 | No mediation |
| Mental toughness | 0.011 | -0.071, 0.102 | 0.002 | 0.789 | No mediation | ||
| Self-efficacy | -0.031 | -0.132, 0.042 | -0.007 | 0.478 | No mediation | ||
| Total indirect | - | 0.046 | -0.087, 0.187 | 0.010 | 0.504 | No mediation | |
| Direct | - | 0.157 | -0.306, 0.616 | 0.035 | 0.507 | Non-significant direct effect |
Indirect effects were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrap procedures with 5,000 resamples. Std. β values represent standardized indirect or direct effects. Trend-level mediation refers to indirect effects with p values between 0.05 and 0.10. CI, confidence interval; HEAS, Hogg-Eco-Anxiety Scale.
DISCUSSION
In our study, within the four-factor structure of eco-anxiety in adolescents, the effects of psychological predictors such as metacognition, mental toughness, and self-efficacy were examined within the framework of a structural equation model. According to the findings obtained from our study, mental toughness was negatively associated with the emotional symptoms and personal impact anxiety dimensions of eco-anxiety, whereas metacognition was positively associated with emotional symptoms, personal impact anxiety, and rumination. Another notable finding was that self-efficacy showed differential associations across eco-anxiety dimensions. In addition, gender emerged as a significant predictor of the rumination dimension in the structural equation model. Girls also exhibited higher levels of several metacognitive processes, including cognitive monitoring, SPR, negative metacognitive beliefs, and total metacognition. These findings suggest that eco-anxiety in adolescents may be associated with multiple psychological factors, and that metacognitive processes, mental resilience, and self-efficacy may exhibit different patterns of association among the various dimensions of eco-anxiety.
Eco-anxiety is considered as a rational and persistent emotional response to a concrete and real threat such as the climate crisis, which the whole world is facing and especially young people are more intensely affected. Defined as chronic fear stemming from environmental disasters, this concept has been noted as needing to be treated as a unique psychological phenomenon due to its specific symptoms, prevalence, and different measurement tools [22,23]. In a survey study conducted by Hickman et al. [24] with 10,000 participants aged 16–25 years from different countries, the authors reported that the participants shared a common concern regarding climate change, and that more than half of them experienced moderate to high levels of worry. In addition, more than half of the participants reported experiencing intense emotions such as sadness, anger, guilt, and helplessness, in addition to anxiety about the climate crisis. Similarly, studies examining the psychological effects of climate change on the youth population in Turkey have shown that eco-anxiety is associated with depressive symptoms and sleep disorders; furthermore, it has been demonstrated that while it correlates positively with perceived stress, it decreases life satisfaction [25]. These findings suggest that climate change and environmental problems may be associated with negative indicators of mental health in children, adolescents and adults.
In our study, mental toughness was negatively associated with the emotional symptoms and personal impact anxiety dimensions of eco-anxiety. Mental toughness is a multidimensional construct that contributes to an individual’s capacity to effectively cope with stressors and supports personal development; it consists of components such as emotional control, perceiving challenges as opportunities for growth, commitment to goals, and interpersonal trust [26]. Similarly, in a study conducted by Mojtahedi et al. [27] with 723 adult participants, the authors demonstrated that the commitment and control subdimensions of mental toughness significantly and negatively reduced anxiety and stress levels. In a study conducted by Gerber et al. [28] on young adults, it was reported that mental toughness weakens the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms. Previous studies have suggested that mental toughness can help individuals manage emotional distress related to ecological anxiety more effectively and cope with repetitive thoughts more efficiently by supporting emotional control skills. Furthermore, increased commitment may support motivation by enabling individuals to maintain goal-directed effort and may reduce the intensity of emotional responses during stressful situations [29]. In addition, some studies on the neurobiological foundations of eco-anxiety have indicated that certain neural mechanisms distinguish it from classic anxiety, with different brain regions playing distinct roles in perceiving environmental threats and in the participation of pro-environmental behaviors aimed at reducing anxiety. As shown in neurobiological pathways, it has been suggested that cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based therapies targeting eco-anxiety, as well as interventions aimed at increasing psychological resilience, may be beneficial in strengthening vulnerable age groups. At the same time, previous studies have indicated that interventions targeting emotion regulation, mindfulness, and psychological flexibility may be suitable for individuals experiencing eco-anxiety [30].
In our study, another important finding was that metacognitive processes positively predicted ecological anxiety, rumination, personal impact anxiety, and emotional symptoms. This finding aligns with theoretical models suggesting that maladaptive metacognitive processes play a central role in sustaining anxiety. While functionally developed metacognitive processes can contribute to the individual’s recognition and evaluation of anxious thoughts, dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs may reinforce the perception that thoughts are uncontrollable and cause threat-oriented cognitive monitoring to continue [31]. In a study conducted by Schultz et al. [32] with 12–13 year old children, it was reported that negative metacognitive beliefs and metacognitive beliefs related to superstition, punishment, and responsibility predicted long-term psychological distress. Several studies have reported that rumination is significantly associated with metacognitive processes and can co-occur with anxiety symptoms [33,34]. In our study, the positive association between metacognition and the rumination dimension of eco-anxiety is consistent with the possibility that repetitive thought patterns regarding environmental threats may be related to metacognitive beliefs. However, due to the use of a cross-sectional design, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the direction or causal nature of this relationship. Similarly, the positive relationship between metacognitive beliefs and the personal impact concern dimension may be associated with the possibility that individuals could assume greater personal responsibility in the face of environmental problems, and that cognitive strategies initially perceived as functional may, over time, turn into a cycle that perpetuates anxiety [35]. It has been shown that mindfulness practices reduce amygdala reactivity seen in eco-anxiety, increase intrinsic motivation, enhance constructive participation in collective action plans, improve emotional regulation, and boost cognitive flexibility [29].
In our study, self-efficacy showed different patterns of association across eco-anxiety dimensions. While self-efficacy was negatively associated with personal impact anxiety, it was positively associated with behavioral symptoms. Self-efficacy is related to an individual’s belief in their capacity to cope with and regulate negative emotions, as well as skills such as managing social relationships, seeking social support, and developing interpersonal trust [36]. Some studies in the literature report that the relationship between climate anxiety and self-efficacy tends to be low, while it has been noted that eco-anxiety is not necessarily dysfunctional; in some individuals, it can increase awareness of climate change and its risks, help clarify ecological values, and encourage pro-environmental behaviors. The adoption of such pro-environmental behavior may foster positive feelings about one’s personal impact on the environment, thereby reducing anxiety and protecting against cognitive impairments [37,38]. On the other hand, it has also been noted that in individuals with high self-efficacy, paying more attention to environmental problems, seeking more information, feeling more responsibility, and taking more action can increase cognitive load, and that the resulting mental effort may negatively affect cognitive functions such as sleep and attention [39]. However, given the relatively small proportion of variance explained in the behavioral symptoms model, this finding should be interpreted with caution. Environmental engagement, perceived responsibility, and climate-related behaviors were not directly assessed in this study, this interpretation should be regarded as provisional. Furthermore, due to the cross-sectional design of the study, causal inferences cannot be made. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the direction of this relationship and the underlying mechanisms.
In our study, girls scored higher than boys on the behavioral symptoms subdimension of eco-anxiety. In addition, girl participants showed higher levels of cognitive monitoring, SPR, negative metacognitive beliefs, and total metacognition. Similarly, previous studies have also reported that adolescent girls experience higher levels of ecological anxiety than boys; however, there is a lack of research examining through which psychological mechanisms this gender difference may have emerged [40,41]. Although gender was observed to be a significant predictor of rumination in our structural equation model, parallel mediation analyses indicated that metacognition, mental resilience, and self-efficacy did not have a significant mediating effect in the relationship between gender and rumination. Therefore, the fact that the relationship between gender and rumination observed in the SEM was not explained by the mediating variables examined in our study suggests that further research including different variables is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of this relationship.
In the present study, higher SES was associated with lower scores only in the behavioral symptoms dimension of eco-anxiety. Previous research exploring the influence of socioeconomic context on eco-anxiety in young populations suggests that adolescents living in economically disadvantaged settings may be more exposed to the direct and indirect consequences of climate change. However, a higher socioeconomic position does not necessarily function as a consistent protective factor. In relatively advantaged environments, greater parental awareness of environmental issues, more frequent engagement in pro-environmental behaviors, and increased coverage of climate change and related risks within educational systems may enhance young people’s awareness and knowledge. This heightened awareness may, in turn, intensify emotional and cognitive responses to environmental threats. Accordingly, the relationship between SES and eco-anxiety appears to be complex rather than linear, potentially reflecting a context-dependent and bidirectional association shaped by intervening psychosocial processes [29,40].
Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the sample was recruited from a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the results to other populations and cultural contexts. Second, the participants were not drawn from a community-based sample, but rather from adolescents presenting to the pediatric health and diseases outpatient clinic, which may restrict the generalizability of the sample to the general adolescent population. Third, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to draw causal inferences about the relationships between eco-anxiety and psychological predictors, and therefore, the findings obtained reflect associations between variables rather than causal relationships. Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the temporal and directional relationships between metacognitive processes, mental resilience, and eco-anxiety. Finally, all data were collected using self-report measures, and no structured clinical assessment was performed. Accordingly, undiagnosed psychiatric conditions may exist, and the findings may be subject to response bias such as social desirability and differences in individual insight.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings regarding the main aim of our study indicate that the subdimensions of the multidimensional construct of eco-anxiety are associated with various cognitive and emotional regulation processes. According to the structural equation model, mental resilience is negatively associated with emotional symptoms and personal impact anxiety, whereas metacognitive processes were found to be positively related to emotional symptoms, personal impact anxiety, and rumination. Additionally, self-efficacy has exhibited different patterns of association among the various subdimensions of eco-anxiety. Gender and SES have also been found to be associated with certain dimensions of eco-anxiety. Taken together, these findings suggest that metacognitive processes, mental resilience, self-efficacy, and sociodemographic characteristics may be important relevant variables in understanding individual differences in eco-anxiety among adolescents. In our world where the challenges of climate change persist, it is recommended that future studies further investigate the potential benefits, for adolescents, of preventive mental health interventions targeting metacognitive processes, mental resilience, and self-efficacy related to eco-anxiety.
Footnotes
Availability of Data and Material
The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: all authors. Data curation: all authors. Formal analysis: all authors. Investigation: all authors. Methodology: all authors. Project administration: Esra Sizer. Resources: all authors. Software: all authors. Supervision: Serhat Nasıroğlu. Validation: all authors. Visualization: Esra Sizer. Writing—original draft: all authors. Writing—review & editing: all authors.
Funding Statement
None
Acknowledgments
None
REFERENCES
- 1.Pihkala P. Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability. 2020;12:7836. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Clayton S, Parnes MF. Anxiety and activism in response to climate change. Curr Opin Psychol. 2025;62:101996. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.101996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Léger-Goodes T, Malboeuf-Hurtubise C, Mastine T, Généreux M, Paradis PO, Camden C. Eco-anxiety in children: a scoping review of the mental health impacts of the awareness of climate change. Front Psychol. 2022;13:872544. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vergunst F, Berry HL. Climate change and children’s mental health: a developmental perspective. Clin Psychol Sci. 2022;10:767–785. doi: 10.1177/21677026211040787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Di Russo M, Campo E, Congedo G, Lombardi GS, Nachira L, Zjalic D, et al. Examining the relationship between socio-demographic variables and eco-anxiety a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2024;34(Supplement 3):ckae144. 2214. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fazal I, Nasir T, Mahmood S. The impact of climate change news on mental health of youth: the rise of eco-anxiety in Pakistan. Ann Methodol Arch Res Rev. 2025;3:269–283. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wells A, Matthews G. Modelling cognition in emotional disorder: the S-REF model. Behav Res Ther. 1996;34:881–888. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00050-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Capobianco L, Faija C, Husain Z, Wells A. Metacognitive beliefs and their relationship with anxiety and depression in physical illnesses: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0238457. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Aburn G, Gott M, Hoare K. What is resilience? An integrative review of the empirical literature. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:980–1000. doi: 10.1111/jan.12888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gucciardi DF. Mental toughness: progress and prospects. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wei M, Tsai PC, Lannin DG, Du Y, Tucker JR. Mindfulness, psychological flexibility, and counseling self-efficacy: hindering self-focused attention as a mediator. Couns Psychol. 2015;43:39–63. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Liu L, Dakkalirad A, Dehghan M, Shahnavazi A, Maazallahi M, Li M, et al. Anxiety, self-efficacy, and their determinants in school students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey in Southeastern Iran. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23:737. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-05252-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hogg TL, Stanley SK, O’Brien LV, Wilson MS, Watsford CR. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Glob Environ Change. 2021;71:102391. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Uzun K, Ferhat Öztürk A, Karaman M, Cebeci F, Altin MO, Arici A, et al. Adaptation of the eco-anxiety scale to Turkish: a validity and reliability study. Arch Health Sci Res. 2022;9:110–115. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Muris P. A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youths. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2001;23:145–149. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Telef BB, Karaca R. [The self-efficacy scale for children; a validity and reliability study] Buca Eğit Fak Derg. 2012;32:169–187. Turkish. [Google Scholar]
- 18.McGeown SP, St Clair-Thompson H, Clough P. The study of non-cognitive attributes in education: proposing the mental toughness framework. Educ Rev. 2016;68:96–113. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Soylu Y, Sağkal AS, Özdemir Y. [Mental toughness scale for adolescents: psychometric properties of Turkish long and short form] Ege Eğit Derg. 2019;20:322–334. Turkish. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bacow TL, Pincus DB, Ehrenreich JT, Brody LR. The metacognitions questionnaire for children: development and validation in a clinical sample of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. J Anxiety Disord. 2009;23:727–736. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Irak M. [Standardization of Turkish form of metacognition questionnaire for children and adolescents: the relationships with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms] Türk Psikiyatri Derg. 2012;23:47–54. Turkish. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cosh SM, Ryan R, Fallander K, Robinson K, Tognela J, Tully PJ, et al. The relationship between climate change and mental health: a systematic review of the association between eco-anxiety, psychological distress, and symptoms of major affective disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2024;24:833. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06274-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Marcolini F, Rocholl JK, Tempia Valenta S, Ferrari B, Di Vincenzo M, Fiorillo A, et al. Eco-anxiety in the younger generation: mental health impact of climate change across age groups in a blood donor sample. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2026;72:687–700. doi: 10.1177/00207640251380066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hickman C, Marks E, Pihkala P, Clayton S, Lewandowski RE, Mayall EE, et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5:e863–e873. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Avan H, Vural B. The relationship between climate change anxiety and depression and insomnia in adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2025;170:108138. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Clough PJ, Earle K, Sewell D. In: Solutions in sport psychology. Cockerill I, editor. London: Thomson Learning; 2002. Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement; pp. 32–46. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mojtahedi D, Dagnall N, Denovan A, Clough P, Hull S, Canning D, et al. The relationship between mental toughness, job loss, and mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychiatry. 2021;11:607246. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.607246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gerber M, Kalak N, Lemola S, Clough PJ, Perry JL, Pühse U, et al. Are adolescents with high mental toughness levels more resilient against stress? Stress Health. 2013;29:164–171. doi: 10.1002/smi.2447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Poonamallee L. Countering climate fear with mindfulness: a framework for sustainable behavioral change. Sustainability. 2025;17:6472. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ikiz B, Carlson JM. Neural pathways to resilience: leveraging neuroscience to understand and mitigate eco-anxiety. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2025;1547:18–23. doi: 10.1111/nyas.15347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Halaj A, Konstantakopoulos G, Ghaemi NS, David AS. Anxiety disorders: the relationship between insight and metacognition. Psychopathology. 2024;57:434–443. doi: 10.1159/000538096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Schultz K, Kannis-Dymand L, Jamieson D, McLoughlin LT, Loughnan S, Allen A, et al. Examining the longitudinal relationship between metacognitive beliefs and psychological distress in an adolescent population: a preliminary analysis. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2025;56:971–981. doi: 10.1007/s10578-023-01611-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wells A. Emotional disorders and metacognition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Wells A. Cognition about cognition: metacognitive therapy and change in generalized anxiety disorder and social phobia. Cogn Behav Pract. 2007;14:18–25. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Reser JP, Bradley GL, Glendon AI, Ellul MC, Callaghan R. Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia and Great Britain: final report. Gold Coast: National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Stanley SK, Hogg TL, Leviston Z, Walker I. From anger to action: differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. J Clim Change Health. 2021;1:100003. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Fürtjes S, Voss C, Rückert F, Peschel SKV, Kische H, Ollmann TM, et al. Self-efficacy, stress, and symptoms of depression and anxiety in adolescents: an epidemiological cohort study with ecological momentary assessment. J Mood Anxiety Disord. 2023;4:100039. doi: 10.1016/j.xjmad.2023.100039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Pasquariello R, Donizzetti AR, Curcio C, Capasso M, Caso D. From values to action: the roles of green self-identity, self-efficacy, and eco-anxiety in predicting pro-environmental behaviours in the Italian context. Sustainability. 2025;17:6838. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Innocenti M, Santarelli G, Lombardi GS, Ciabini L, Zjalic D, Di Russo M, et al. How can climate change anxiety induce both pro-environmental behaviours and eco-paralysis? The mediating role of general self-efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:3085. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Niedzwiedz CL, Kankawale SM, Katikireddi SV. A systematic review of social, political and geographic factors associated with eco-anxiety in children and young people. Nat Mental Health. 2025;3:1579–1615. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ramírez-López AS, Rosetti MF, Poma A. Gender, exposure to news, knowledge about climate change, and prosociality predict climate anxiety scores in Mexican students. Ecopsychology. 2023;15:184–192. [Google Scholar]