Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460839›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

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

Lisa Marie Hempel, Mattis Geiger, Cornelia Betsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Lisa Marie HempelImplementation Science, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1572-1694
Mattis GeigerImplementation Science, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.
Cornelia BetschImplementation Science, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-7303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite recent research efforts to understand climate anxiety, related measurement is challenged by multiple definitions and the emergence of several seemingly similar measures, warranting a thorough and joint investigation of their validity. This study (N = 1003) examined the factor structure of existing measures, namely the Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS) and the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS), and tested their overlap in joint measurement models. The results showed that CAS and HEAS indeed seem to capture the same overarching construct, climate anxiety. A joint measurement model with a single higher-order general factor indicated by a CAS g-factor and four HEAS factors had good fit. This overarching climate anxiety factor was related to but still distinct from nomologically related constructs (e.g., climate-related risk perception, neuroticism). Climate anxiety was also strongly correlated with political participation, an aspect of the readiness for climate action. A small correlation with self-efficacy to show individual emission-reducing behavior and no association with climate-change-related fatigue suggests that high levels of climate anxiety are not accompanied by paralysis but instead by mild activation. The results showed generally low levels of climate anxiety in the general population. These findings are discussed regarding the resulting challenges for validation efforts and experimental work, accompanied with recommendations for further steps in measurement development.

Indexed as

AnxietyClimate ChangeAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41460839
PMCPMC12747369

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.