Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37809319›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Anxiety in response to the climate and environmental crises: validation of the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale in Germany.

Stephan Heinzel, Mira Tschorn, Michael Schulte-Hutner, Fabian Schäfer, Gerhard Reese, Carina Pohle, Felix Peter, Michael Neuber, Shuyan Liu, Jan Keller and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Stephan HeinzelInstitute of Psychology, Department of Educational Sciences and Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
Mira TschornSocial and Preventive Medicine, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Michael Schulte-HutnerDepartment of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Fabian SchäferSustainable Development, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, Darmstadt, Germany.
Gerhard ReeseDepartment of Psychology, RPTU Kaiserslautern Landau, Campus Landau, Landau, Germany.
Carina PohleKlimabildung e.V., Bochum, Germany.
Felix PeterDepartment of School Psychology, State School Administration of Saxony-Anhalt, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Michael NeuberCenter for Technology and Society, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Shuyan LiuDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jan KellerDepartment of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael EichingerCenter for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Myriam BechtoldtDepartment of Management, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany.
Freie Universität Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEDarmstadt University of Applied Sciences · DEEBS University of Business and Law · DERheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau · DETechnische Universität Berlin · DETU Dortmund University · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Potsdam · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As the climate and environmental crises unfold, eco-anxiety, defined as anxiety about the crises' devastating consequences for life on earth, affects mental health worldwide. Despite its importance, research on eco-anxiety is currently limited by a lack of validated assessment instruments available in different languages. Recently, Hogg and colleagues proposed a multidimensional approach to assess eco-anxiety. Here, we aim to translate the original English Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS) into German and to assess its reliability and validity in a German sample. Methods: Following the TRAPD (translation, review, adjudication, pre-test, documentation) approach, we translated the original English scale into German. In total, 486 participants completed the German HEAS. We used Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess whether the four-factorial model of the original English version could be replicated in the German sample. Furthermore, associations with a variety of emotional reactions towards the climate crisis, general depression, anxiety, and stress were investigated. Results: The German HEAS was internally consistent (Cronbach's alphas 0.71-0.86) and the Bayesian CFA showed that model fit was best for the four-factorial model, comparable to the factorial structure of the original English scale (affective symptoms, rumination, behavioral symptoms, anxiety about personal impact). Weak to moderate associations were found with negative emotional reactions towards the climate crisis and with general depression, anxiety, and stress. Discussion: Our results support the original four-factorial model of the scale and indicate that the German HEAS is a reliable and valid scale to assess eco-anxiety in German speaking populations.

Indexed as

climate anxietyclimate changeclimate crisiseco-anxietyenvironmental crisisHogg Eco-Anxiety Scale

Identifiers

PMID37809319
PMCPMC10552256
OpenAlexW4386915945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.