Next Article in Journal
Advances in Dissolved Organic Carbon Remote Sensing Inversion in Inland Waters: Methodologies, Challenges, and Future Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling a Financial Controlling System for Managing Transfer Pricing Operations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146649
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Foster Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Reduce Climate Change Anxiety in French Adults

by
Serena L. Colombo
1,
Camille Lefrançois
2,
Jacques Fradin
2,
Salvatore G. Chiarella
1,3,*,
Antonino Raffone
1,4 and
Luca Simione
3,5
1
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
2
Laboratoire de Psychologie et de Neurosciences, Institut de Médecine Environnementale (IME), 03700 Serbannes, France
3
Department of International Humanities and Social Sciences, UNINT, Via Cristoforo Colombo, 200, 00147 Rome, Italy
4
School of Buddhist Studies, Philosophy, and Comparative Religions, Nalanda University, Rajgir 803116, India
5
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (ISTC), National Research Council (CNR), Via S. Martino della Battaglia, 44, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6649; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146649
Submission received: 12 May 2025 / Revised: 10 July 2025 / Accepted: 15 July 2025 / Published: 21 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Addressing climate change requires not only knowledge but also psychological resilience. This study examined whether integrating Mental Mode Management (MMM) self-regulation training with climate education improves pro-environmental outcomes and emotional responses to climate change. In a randomised 2 × 2 design, 44 participants were assigned to either a control group (CG; n = 21), which received a six-week climate education programme, or an experimental group (MMM; n = 23), which received the same education plus MMM training. Pro-environmental attitudes, behaviours, carbon emissions, climate change anxiety, mindfulness, and executive functions were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A follow-up was also conducted six months later. Both groups showed increased pro-environmental attitudes post-intervention (η2 = 0.3) and reduced food-related emissions (η2 = 0.107). No changes were observed in pro-environmental behaviour scores or global carbon footprint. While neither intervention affected overall climate anxiety or cognitive impairment, functional impairment increased in the CG and decreased in the MMM group (η2 = 0.177), with mindfulness facet acting with awareness moderating this effect. These findings contribute to sustainability research by showing that integrating climate education with psychological training enhances environmental awareness and fosters emotionally resilient engagement with climate challenges, supporting individual-level contributions to broader sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

Achieving sustainability requires not only technological and policy innovations but also profound shifts in human behaviour and psychological engagement with environmental issues. This study contributes to addressing that broader challenge by investigating how a targeted psychological intervention aimed at enhancing self-regulation abilities can empower individuals to adopt sustainable behaviours while maintaining psychological well-being. Scientific evidence consistently underscores human responsibility in the environmental crisis [1,2]. As a matter of fact, research indicates that households account for over 60% of global greenhouse gases emissions, [3,4] and that these emissions are strongly related to behaviours over which individuals have a significant degree of control [5,6]. Educating individuals about their fundamental role in mitigating emissions stands therefore as a priority. However, despite increasingly widespread environmental knowledge and public concern [7], mobilising individuals in addressing the climate crisis remains a challenge, as evidenced by the persistent gap between pro-environmental attitudes and actual behaviours [8]. Furthermore, raising awareness of the current climate crisis sometimes leads to increased climate change anxiety and psychological distress [9,10]. Paradoxically, this can result in reduced engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, eventually leading to eco-paralysis [11] due to maladaptive coping strategies [12]. Thus, psychological resilience and self-regulation skills emerge as critical components of individuals’ capacity to engage in sustainability-related behaviours.

1.1. Self-Regulation and the Individual’s Response to Climate Change

Recent research suggests that, alongside environmental knowledge and motivation, self-regulation plays an essential role in enabling behaviours aimed at reducing the environmental impact [8,13]. Self-regulation refers to the ability to control automatic reactions and internal feelings to achieve long-term goals [14,15,16]. This skill is especially important for adopting pro-environmental behaviours, which often require breaking old habits or giving up immediate rewards for the greater good of society and the environment [17,18].
Self-regulation also involves managing emotions, not just actions and thoughts [19,20,21]. This capacity is particularly critical for addressing distressing climate-related emotions—and particularly fear and sadness—which can impede adaptive coping mechanisms in response to climate change [22,23,24]. Emotion regulation skills also help manage climate change anxiety, a psychological state marked by distress, worry, and emotional discomfort stemming from awareness of climate change and its anticipated impacts [10]. Climate change anxiety is currently experienced by a significant proportion of individuals worldwide and is expected to increase as global warming progresses [12,25,26]. The literature suggests, indeed, that whilst a moderate degree of climate change anxiety is necessary to trigger pro-environmental action, severe levels of it may instead lead to reduced engagement in pro-environmental behaviours and maladaptive coping strategies, such as, for instance, avoidance or denial of climate change [27,28]. Therefore, supporting individuals’ ability to regulate their emotions can play a vital role in empowering sustainable engagement and fostering adaptive responses to the challenges posed by the environmental crisis.
Studies on mindfulness support this view, linking the concept both to increased pro-environmental behaviours [29,30] and emotional regulation [31,32,33,34]. Mindfulness can be referred to either as a dispositional tendency to pay and maintain attention to present-moment experiences with an open and non-judgmental attitude [35] or the ability to observe thoughts, bodily sensations, or feelings in the present moment with an open and accepting orientation cultivated through meditation [36].
Mindfulness-related emotion regulation skills, fostering non-reactivity and acceptance of emotional experiences, have also been linked to lower climate change anxiety and greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviours in response to functionally impairing climate anxiety [27]. Additionally, dispositional mindfulness has been associated with a greater willingness to engage in climate adaptation and with a reduced tendency to adopt a fatalistic attitude toward the climate crisis [37].

1.2. Training Self-Regulation

Evidence suggests that self-regulation can be improved through targeted interventions that focus on specific components of the self-regulatory process, such as goal setting, monitoring, and goal striving [38]. Alternatively, interventions can target the cognitive functions underpinning self-regulated action, i.e., executive functions [39,40]. Among these strategies, cognitive manipulation interventions like, for instance, implementation intentions [41], mental contrasting [42], or cognitive reframing, have been found to be particularly effective in enhancing goal achievement [43] and in promoting engagement in pro-environmental behaviours [44,45]. Additionally, a systematic review found that interventions based on contemplative practices (e.g., mindfulness, yoga, and other mind–body practices), cognitive training, and school programmes promoting emotional, social, and problem-solving skills also positively impact at least one component of executive functioning [46]. Mindfulness-based interventions have been found to enhance awareness and modulation of automatic responses to stimuli [47,48], a skill linked to the monitoring and goal-striving aspects of self-regulation. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that mindfulness-based interventions positively influence pro-environmental behaviours or some of their known antecedents [49,50,51,52]. Yet, few studies have directly examined whether structured interventions aimed at enhancing self-regulation can simultaneously promote engagement in pro-environmental behaviour and reduce emotional vulnerability to climate-related threats—thereby contributing to individual-level pathways toward sustainability.
A specific cognitive adaption training is Mental Mode Management (MMM). Consistent with dual models of self-regulation [53,54,55,56], MMM training targets self-regulation skills through a set of exercises enhancing individuals’ ability to switch from an automatic operating mode (also referred to as System 1), faster but more rigid and imprecise, to an adaptive mode (or System 2) more flexible, nuanced, and rational [53]. Previous interventions based on the MMM approach have been found to improve self-regulation and adaptive coping in both clinical populations [57] and air force pilots, a group that requires strong abilities to resist automatic assumptions and adapt in real time to complex, uncertain situations [58,59]. MMM uniquely integrates techniques derived from mindfulness-based training with exercises grounded in the principles of cognitive behavioural therapy. This integrative framework is specifically designed to address not only the emotional reactivity often associated with complex stressors but also the cognitive and behavioural barriers that may impede adaptive responses to novel challenges. Given the deeply intertwined nature of emotional, cognitive, and behavioural processes in the context of climate engagement, we consider MMM particularly well-suited to this domain.

1.3. The Present Study

The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of Mental Mode Management (MMM) training—an intervention developed by members of the author team—in fostering pro-environmental engagement while enhancing individuals’ psychological resilience to climate-related stress. Building on previous evidence of MMM’s effectiveness in improving emotion regulation and adaptive functioning in complex contexts, this study tested its application in the specific domain of climate engagement.
Although existing MMM studies have not directly demonstrated improvements in global measures of self-regulation or executive functions, they do provide clear evidence of an enhanced self-regulated performance in complex, high-stakes situations and improved stress and emotion management. Considering the above, we hypothesised that training self-regulation skills through an MMM programme would influence individuals’ responses to the environmental crisis by enhancing their capacity to manage climate-related stress and emotions. We expected that combining environmental education with MMM training would influence cognitive (pro-environmental attitudes), emotional (climate change anxiety), and behavioural (pro-environmental behaviours) responses. Participants were expected to gain a better understanding of the climate crisis and increase their engagement in addressing it, while also improving their ability to regulate emotions in response to distressing climate information. Specifically, in both conditions (environmental education only and environmental education plus MMM training), we expected pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours to increase post-intervention (H1). However, as MMM training enhances self-regulation, we expected a stronger increase in pro-environmental behaviours in the MMM group due to improved behavioural regulation (H2). Since climate change information can heighten anxiety, and MMM training targets emotional regulation, we also anticipated that anxiety would rise in the control group but remain stable or decrease in the MMM group (H3). Finally, dispositional self-regulation, measured through trait mindfulness (H4) and executive functions (H5), was expected to moderate differences between groups in behavioural and emotional responses to the climate crisis. Measures of trait mindfulness and executive functioning were selected as proxies for self-regulation, reflecting the well-established links between executive functions and self-regulation [39,40], and between mindfulness and self-regulation [49,50,51,52].

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Sample Size Estimation and Participants

Considering that previous studies on MMM interventions (n = 22 [58]; n = 53 [59]) reported a moderate effect size, for our study, we aimed to recruit 50 to 60 participants. A G-Power 3.0 simulation [60] confirmed that this sample size would reliably detect moderate to large effect sizes in a between-subject design with repeated measures. We recruited healthy, French-speaking adults (aged 25–65) willing to complete the study and attend the full training. Exclusion criteria included prior MMM training, missing more than 1/3 of the sessions, or incomplete assessments. Recruitment via social media and email yielded 67 registrations. Of these, 49 completed the pre-intervention survey and began training, 44 completed the training and main assessments (40 completed the carbon footprint assessment), and 30 completed follow-up assessments six months later (24 completed the follow-up carbon footprint calculation). All participants signed informed consent forms. The protocol received ethical approval by the Ethical Committee of Università degli Studi Internazionali of Rome, with approval code n. 19.2024. No financial compensation was offered in exchange for participation. After completing this study, we conducted a post hoc power analysis, which indicated sufficient power to detect a moderate-to-large effect size with the final sample size. While this power was slightly below our a priori estimate, the observed effect sizes were consistent with those reported in previous MMM research and aligned with our hypotheses.

2.2. Procedures

Before the intervention, participants completed an online survey, programmed via Psytoolkit, version 3.4.6, [61,62], assessing socio-demographics, dispositional factors (e.g., mindfulness, executive functioning), pro-environmental attitudes, behaviours, and climate change anxiety. They also reported their carbon footprint using a calculator developed by the French National Agency for Ecological Transition [63].
Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Randomisation was carried out by first alphabetically ordering all eligible participants by the initial letter of their surname. Starting with a randomly determined group assignment for the first person, participants were then assigned alternately to either the control condition or the MMM condition (e.g., 1st to MMM, 2nd to control, 3rd to MMM, etc.). Prior to the intervention, baseline analyses of key demographic and outcome variables were conducted to confirm that the two groups were comparable. This method ensured an unbiased allocation sequence, balanced group sizes (CG: n = 21; MMM: n = 23), and equivalent baseline characteristics across conditions. No further stratification factors were employed. For more details, see Figure 1.
Both groups attended six weekly two-hour sessions over seven weeks, receiving environmental education based on IPCC, UNEP, and WMO reports. The control group was only exposed to environmental knowledge and engaged in discussions about the new learnings, while the MMM group also received self-regulation training to enhance their ability to regulate automatic responses, process information adaptively, and manage emotions (for more details on the programme, see Figure 2). MMM exercises addressed cognitive schemas, beliefs, and bias, as well as emotional regulation (for more details, see Figure 3). A post-intervention survey assessed effects on previously assessed variables of interest, as well as participants’ perceptions of the training and of its effects, and was followed by a six-month follow-up.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Pro-Environmental Behaviours (Self-Reported)

We used a French translation of the Pro-environmental Behaviour Scale (PEBS [64]), a 19-item questionnaire measuring engagement across four dimensions: conservation, environmental citizenship, food consumption, and transportation.

2.3.2. Pro-Environmental Behaviours (Carbon Footprint Calculation)

Participants calculated their carbon footprint using ADEME’s official calculator [63], which estimates emissions across five areas: food, transportation, housing, public services, and miscellaneous consumption. The tool assesses deviations from the national average based on detailed consumption data provided by participants.

2.3.3. Pro-Environmental Attitudes

We used the validated French version of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP [65,66]), a 15-item Likert scale measuring pro- and anti-ecological worldviews.

2.3.4. Climate Change Anxiety

The validated French version of the Climate Change Anxiety Scale, (CCAS [25,67]) assessed anxiety towards climate change through 13 items, measuring its two sub-dimensions (i.e., cognitive impairment and functional impairment). The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess agreement with statements such as “Thinking about climate change makes it difficult for me to sleep” or “My concerns about climate change undermine my ability to work to my potential.”

2.3.5. Dispositional Mindfulness

Dispositional mindfulness was assessed using the validated French version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ [68,69]). The FFMQ assesses mindfulness, based on a 5-point Likert scale, by evaluating individual responses across five main dimensions: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity to inner experience. The FFMQ was employed to capture individual differences in self-regulation, given its robust associations with self-regulatory capacity [49,50,51,52]. Specifically, the Observing facet indexes the ability to direct attention to present-moment experience; Acting with Awareness reflects the capacity to regulate behaviours and resist automatic responses; Nonjudging and Nonreacting tap into emotional-regulation skills; and Describing encompasses both the ability to label internal experiences and to engage emotion-regulation processes.

2.3.6. Inhibitory Control (Executive Functions)

To assess inhibitory control, we used a computerised version of the Go/No-Go task [70] available in the Psytoolkit catalogue of computerised experiments [61,62]. This task evaluates inhibitory control (i.e., the ability to regulate attention, behaviours, cognition, and emotions to counteract a powerful internal inclination or an external stimulus [71]) by assessing individuals’ ability to refrain from responding to a visual stimulus when not required to do so. Inhibitory control was employed as an index of behavioural regulation, reflecting individuals’ capacity to withhold prepotent or impulsive responses.

2.3.7. Cognitive Flexibility (Executive Functions)

To assess cognitive flexibility (i.e., the ability to adjust one’s thinking from old situations to new situations, overcome responses that have become habitual, and adapt to new situations [71]), we used a computerised version of the Task Switching Task [72] measuring individual ability to switch between two different tasks (shape task and filling task) and comparing individual performance in a task-repeat condition versus a task-switching condition. Cognitive flexibility was used as an indicator of behavioural regulation, reflecting participants’ capacity to adjust strategies and actions in response to novel or changing conditions.

2.3.8. Perception of the Intervention

To assess participants’ perception of the intervention and of its effects on their reaction to the climate crisis, we submitted to all participants a questionnaire composed by 22 items investigating dimensions such as their appreciation of the intervention (overall and for characteristics such as clarity, length, and rhythm); their level of engagement in the training; their perception of a variation in the degree of attention, concern, and action experienced/adopted when facing climate change; their perception of the utility of the intervention in increasing their understanding of climate change; their ability to regulate their climate emotions; and their ability to plan actions to address the crisis.

2.3.9. Control Variables

Gender, age, education, socio-economic status, and political orientation were collected through a socio-demographic form and used as control variables in the analyses.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using Jamovi [73]. First, chi-square and independent-samples t-tests examined differences between groups in background characteristics (age, education, socio-economic status, political orientation). A repeated-measures ANOVA tested the effects of the intervention on climate change responses (pro-environmental behaviours, carbon footprint, pro-environmental attitudes, climate change anxiety) and self-regulation skills (mindfulness, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility), with the group (MMM or control) and time (baseline, post-intervention) as factors. Tukey post hoc tests explored significant interactions.
To examine self-regulation skills as moderators, moderation analyses tested whether mindfulness or executive functions influenced the intervention’s effects, which proved to be significant. For significant interactions, simple slope analysis identified moderator values (±1 SD from the mean) where predictor–outcome associations were significant. Additional t-tests evaluated participants’ perceptions of the intervention.
Finally, repeated-measures ANOVAs assessed long-term effects on pro-environmental attitudes, behaviours, and climate change anxiety using follow-up data. Factors included the group (MMM or control) and time (baseline, post-intervention, follow-up), with Tukey post hoc tests exploring interactions across these phases.

3. Results

3.1. Main Analysis

Before starting the main analysis, we performed some analysis to ensure that the randomisation of the sample into two groups was effective. A set of independent-samples t-tests (Table 1) indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups when it comes to socio-demographic factors that have been previously linked to pro-environmental behaviours (i.e., age, education, revenue, and political orientation). A chi-square test showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, χ2 (1, N = 44) = 0.014, p = 0.905. The MMM group included 20 participants who identified as female and 3 as male, while the CG included 18 females and 3 males.

3.1.1. Intervention’s Effect on Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours

To evaluate the intervention’s effects on climate change reactions, we conducted repeated-measures ANOVA with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The within-subjects factor was time (pre- and post-intervention), and the between-subjects factor was the group (two intervention conditions). This allowed us to examine the time, group, and interaction effects on pro-environmental attitudes (NEP), behaviours (PEBS, carbon footprint), and climate anxiety (CCAS).
The intervention significantly increased NEP scores, F (1, 42) = 17.978, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.3, suggesting that greater climate knowledge increased pro-environmental attitudes, though no differences emerged between groups. On the other hand, neither intervention significantly affected PEBS scores or overall carbon footprint. However, both led to a modest yet significant reduction in food-related emissions, F (1, 38) = 4.555, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.107. Miscellaneous consumption emissions also slightly increased post-intervention, F (1, 38) = 4.418, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.104, but without a time × group interaction. No effects were found for transportation or housing emissions.

3.1.2. Intervention Effect on Climate Change Anxiety

Regarding climate change anxiety, no interventions influenced overall climate change anxiety or its cognitive impairment dimension. However, a significant time × group interaction emerged for functional impairment, F (1, 42) = 9.052, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.177. Post hoc tests showed that functional impairment nearly increased in the control group, t (42) = −1.994, p = 0.053, while decreasing in the MMM group, t (42) = 2.268, p < 0.05, indicating that MMM training mitigated functional impairment (see Figure 4).

3.1.3. Intervention’s Effect on Self-Regulation Skills

As a second step, we performed a series of repeated-measures ANOVAs to test the effects of the MMM intervention on the variables related to self-regulation (i.e., mindfulness skill and executive functions). First, we analysed Go/No-Go task accuracy, measuring inhibitory control, using a 2 × 2 factorial design (time: pre–post; group: control/MMM). No significant group differences or time × group effects emerged.
Next, we examined cognitive flexibility via the Multitasking Task. We compared participants’ response times across incongruent–congruent, switching–no-switching, and mixing–no-mixing trials using a 2 × 2 × 2 design. Time (pre–post) and trial type (incongruent–congruent, switching–no-switching, mixing–no-mixing) were used as within-subjects factors, and the group (control or MMM) was used as the between-subjects factor. In line with Stoet [72], we found that response times increased in the incongruent task condition versus the congruent one, F (1, 41) = 10.31, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.201, and decreased in the post-intervention assessment, F (1, 41) = 14.84, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.266. However, we found no significant difference in participants’ response times depending on the group, suggesting that the MMM intervention had no effect on participants’ performance in the task. A similar pattern was found when looking at the switching trials and mixing trial. Specifically, for the switching trial, we found an effect of trial difficulty, F (1, 41) = 115.377, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.738 and of time, F (1, 41) = 14.839, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.266, but no significant effect of group or of time × group × trial. Likewise, for the mixing trial, we found an effect of trial difficulty, F (1, 41) = 392.82, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.905 and of time, F (1, 41) = 5.093, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.111, but no effect of group or of time × group × trial.
Finally, we assessed the effect of the intervention on the various mindfulness skills assessed by the FFMQ via 2 × 2 ANOVAs (time × group). Both groups showed a significant negative effect on observing, F (1, 42) = 21.76, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.341, but no baseline or intervention-based group differences. Other FFMQ facets showed no significant effects.

3.1.4. Moderation Analysis

As a third step, we performed moderation analysis to assess the role of self-regulation skills in explaining the effect of the MMM intervention on the functional impairment dimension of climate change anxiety. We tested the interaction between training type and baseline FFMQ facets on changes in functional impairment. Only the acting with awareness facet significantly moderated MMM’s effect, b = 0.245, SE = 0.118, 95% CI [0.014, 0.476], p < 0.05. A subsequent simple slope analysis showed that the MMM intervention was significantly and negatively associated with functional impairment scores for participants with low (−1 SD) and average levels of acting with awareness. For participants with low levels of acting with awareness, the estimate was b = −3.447, SE = 0.953, 95% CI [−5.31, −1.579], p < 0.001. For participants with average levels of acting with awareness, the estimate was b = −2.089, SE = 0.678, 95% CI [−3.42, −0.76], p < 0.01. Conversely, the effect was non-significant for participants with high levels of acting with awareness (+1 SD). This indicates that acting with awareness moderates MMM’s effectiveness, with higher levels compensating for MMM’s impact on functional impairment in the control group. No moderation effects were found for other mindfulness skills (see Table 2).
Next, we assessed whether inhibitory control, as a measure of self-regulation, played a role in explaining the differentiated effect of the MMM vs. control conditions on functional impairment. We first tested the effect of the interaction between training type and baseline Go/No-Go accuracy on changes in the functional impairment dimension of climate change anxiety. The analysis revealed that the interaction was non-significant.
We then examined cognitive flexibility’s role by calculating a switching cost index (difference in completion time between non-switching and switching conditions) and testing its moderation effect. The analysis showed that cognitive flexibility, as assessed by the Multitasking Task, did not moderate the intervention’s effect on functional impairment.

3.1.5. Self-Reported Perception of the Effects of the Intervention

As the final step in our initial analysis, we conducted independent-samples t-tests to examine whether participants’ responses to the brief questionnaire on their perception of the intervention differed by experimental condition. We found a significant difference between the two conditions regarding participants’ perception of their level of worry about the climate crisis, t (42) = 2.463, p < 0.05, and their ability to manage their emotional reaction to it, t (42) = 3.935, p < 0.001. Additionally, we found an almost significant difference in their reported perceived efficacy in planning actions to address the environmental crisis, t (42) = 1.971, p = 0.055. These analyses support the previous results, indicating that MMM participants were less likely to report increased environmental worry post-intervention and more likely to feel the intervention helped them manage their emotions and plan their actions in response to the climate crisis.

3.2. Follow-Up Analysis

Our follow-up analysis examined the long-term effects of the intervention on individuals’ reactions to the climate crisis and the persistence of MMM training’s impact on climate change anxiety. We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs with a 3 × 2 design (time: pre-intervention, post-intervention, follow-up; group: control and MMM).
First, we analysed NEP scores, finding a significant main effect of time, F (2, 56) = 16.729, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.167. NEP scores increased post-intervention, t (28) = −3.03, p < 0.05, but decreased significantly at follow-up, t (28) = 6.38, p < 0.001, resulting in lower NEP scores than baseline, t (28) = 2.50, p < 0.05 (see Figure 5). This indicates a rebound effect, with no lasting impact of the intervention on pro-environmental attitudes. No group differences were found.
For pro-environmental behaviours, no intervention effects emerged on PEBS, but global carbon footprint varied over time, F (2, 44) = 4.233, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.161. Though pre- to post-intervention changes were non-significant, a significant decrease occurred between post-intervention and follow-up, t (22) = 2.784, p < 0.05, leading to an overall reduction from baseline, t (22) = 2.668, p < 0.05. When examining carbon footprint dimensions, no changes were found for transportation and housing. However, food-related emissions significantly decreased, F (2, 44) = 6.770, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.235, mainly between pre- and post-intervention, t (22) = 2.572, p < 0.05, with the overall reduction remaining significant at follow-up, t (22) = 3.398, p < 0.05. Miscellaneous consumption emissions also varied significantly, F (2, 44) = 8.158, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.271, with an initial non-significant increase followed by a significant decrease between post-intervention and follow-up, t (22) = 3.56, p < 0.01, leading to an overall reduction, t (22) = 3.08, p < 0.01 (see Figure 6). No group differences were found in any carbon footprint dimensions.
Finally, we assessed the long-term effect of the intervention on CCAS and its two subdimensions. No significant effects of the intervention over time were observed for either the overall CCAS score or the cognitive impairment score. On the other hand, when it comes to the functional impairment score, the analysis revealed an almost significant time × group effect of the intervention, F (2, 56) = 3.1140, p = 0.052, η2 = 0.100. Post hoc analysis showed no significant within-group differences over time for this reduced sample, though functional impairment scores trended toward significance pre- to post-intervention in the control group, t (28) = −1.930, p = 0.064 but not in the MMM group, t (28) = −1.608, p = 0.119 (see Figure 7). No significant differences were detected, on the other hand, between the pre-intervention assessment and the follow-up, or between the post-intervention assessment and the follow-up, suggesting that the effects of the intervention on functional impairment were transient, similar to the effects on NEP.

4. Discussion of Results

The aim of the current study was to assess the effects of a type of cognitive adaptation training, named MMM, targeting self-regulation skills, on individuals’ cognitive, behavioural, and emotional reactions to the climate crisis. Specifically, we hypothesised that increased knowledge of the environmental crisis—its current state, causes, consequences, and possible solutions—combined with MMM training would lead to greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviours and better regulation of emotional responses to climate change, due to enhanced self-regulation skills.
In support of our first hypothesis, we observed a positive effect of the intervention on pro-environmental attitudes and measures of pro-environmental behaviours related to food consumption emissions, in both the control and MMM conditions. This finding suggests that increased knowledge about climate change enhances environmental concern, potentially leading to prompt behavioural changes. These results align with the existing literature on pro-environmental behaviours, which identifies knowledge as a major determinant of pro-environmental engagement [74,75,76], and environmental attitudes as a necessary antecedent of pro-environmental behaviours [77,78]. However, after the training, a small increase in carbon emissions linked to miscellaneous consumption was observed in both conditions. Additionally, no effects of either intervention were detected on more global measures of pro-environmental behaviours. This may suggest that factors beyond knowledge and attitudes also play a role in influencing (or preventing) people’s behavioural response to the climate crisis. These may include access to more sustainable alternatives in domains such as housing and transportation, or the time and resources required to implement specific carbon-reducing behaviours.
This perspective is supported by the observation that pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours follow different trajectories in the follow-up assessment. While pro-environmental attitudes tended to return to (and sometimes exceed) their pre-intervention levels, carbon emissions continued to slowly decrease. This may suggest that while attitudes are directly impacted by knowledge and information, and potentially by the way this knowledge is emotionally appraised, behavioural change may follow a slower, more gradual trajectory. This may be due to the time, effort, and structural adjustments required to alter entrenched habits and adopt more sustainable lifestyles. It is also worth noting that our participants initially exhibited higher-than-average engagement in pro-environmental behaviour, suggesting a potential plateau effect that may have limited the ability to detect further behavioural changes. Also, standard self-report measures of pro-environmental behaviour such as PEBS may lack sensitivity to subtle or incremental shifts.
Contrary to our second hypothesis, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of increased engagement in pro-environmental behaviour. Likewise, the results did not indicate a differentiated effect of the MMM intervention on self-regulation skills, as measured through dispositional mindfulness and executive function tasks. This may be interpreted as a lack of evidence for the effect of MMM on behavioural self-regulation, either in general or specifically within the context of the climate crisis, which could explain the absence of a behavioural impact. However, the null effect on self-regulation skills may also reflect limitations in the sensitivity of the measures employed (i.e., FFMQ, Go/No-Go, Task Switching). These tools may not adequately capture the type of self-regulatory changes targeted by MMM training. This interpretation is supported by qualitative feedback from the post-intervention survey, where participants in the MMM group reported feeling more capable of planning climate-related actions, despite receiving the same information as the control group. An additional explanation could lie in the relatively short duration of the MMM intervention. Mindfulness and executive functions are relatively stable traits, which a six-week intervention consisting of two-hour sessions may struggle to significantly influence, even if eight-week mindfulness-based interventions seem capable of doing so [79]. Also, a six-week intervention may not have been sufficient to produce measurable changes in behavioural regulation or translate increased planning ability into actual behavioural change. This aligns with the broader notion that contextual and structural factors may take precedence over individual dispositions and skills in shaping pro-environmental action.
However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in the level of functionally impairing climate change anxiety after the intervention. Functional impairment increased in the control group while it decreased in the MMM group, supporting our third hypothesis regarding the MMM training’s effect on individuals’ ability to regulate their emotional response to the climate crisis. Thus, while information on the environmental crisis comparably enhanced pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours in both groups, the MMM training appeared to foster a more balanced emotional reaction to such potentially distressing information. This is particularly insightful considering that climate change anxiety is expected to rise globally as a response to the escalating effects of global warming [10,11]. Also, we should note that, when too severe, climate change anxiety is believed to inhibit rather than encourage pro-environmental action [12,80], supporting the view of a counterproductive effect of fear-related emotions in prompting pro-environmental action [22,23,24]. However, the effects of both the control and MMM conditions, in either increasing or decreasing functional impairment, tended to revert to their pre-intervention levels six months after the end of the training. While these results may partly reflect the small sample size used in the follow-up analysis, they also align with the observed long-term effects of the training on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. This suggests that automatic cognitive processes, such as salience bias, may contribute to shaping individuals’ emotional and cognitive responses to the climate crisis. Conversely, the development of new habits may account for the longer-lasting effects of both interventions on pro-environmental behaviours, such as reducing the carbon footprint, as suggested by the comprehensive action determination model of pro-environmental behaviour [81].
Finally, no effects of the MMM training were detected in enhancing self-regulation abilities, as measured by changes in dispositional mindfulness skills and executive functions. However, we found a moderating effect of the acting with awareness facet of mindfulness in explaining the differential effects of the two interventions on functionally impairing climate change anxiety, supporting our fourth hypothesis. The effects of the MMM training on functional impairment were significantly different than those of the control condition only when baseline levels of acting with awareness were low or average, but not when they were higher than average. This may suggest a positive effect of the MMM on this dimension of mindfulness, which clearly overlaps with the monitoring component of the self-regulatory process [38]. At the same time, it remains unclear why a direct effect of the intervention on acting with awareness was not observed. Nevertheless, the pattern of results points to the possibility that the MMM training indirectly strengthens this facet of self-regulation, particularly in individuals who tend to operate on autopilot and react automatically to stimuli. This perspective is supported by data from the post-intervention survey, which revealed that participants in the MMM condition experienced less worry about the climate crisis and reported increased feelings of self-efficacy in managing their emotions and in planning their actions. Conversely, in contrast to our fifth hypothesis, we did not find any significant moderating effects for the measures assessing cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control in explaining the effects of both interventions on functional impairment.
The current study is not without limitations. Firstly, our study may exhibit sampling bias due to the relatively small size and specific characteristics of our final sample. Attrition resulted in a smaller final sample size, particularly for the follow-up analysis, than initially intended, potentially affecting our ability to detect smaller effects of our interventions, especially regarding pro-environmental behaviour and self-regulation scores. Replicating this study with a larger sample would enhance the reliability of our findings. Additionally, participants voluntarily joined this study, primarily due to their interest in climate change, and displayed above-average engagement with the issue, as evidenced by their lower-than-average pre-intervention carbon footprint (mean global carbon footprint of 7.07 T vs. 8.9 T in the French population [63]). This may limit the generalisability of our results to the broader population and affect our ability to detect intervention effects on variables, such as pro-environmental behaviour, which are less sensitive to variation at higher engagement levels. Future research should aim to recruit a sample that is more diverse and more representative of the general population regarding pro-environmental engagement. One way to address this selectivity bias could be to implement this study in school or corporate settings, thereby reaching a broader range of participants with diverse levels of environmental awareness and motivation. Also, this study employed a quasi-randomised design, which carries the potential risk of selection bias due to non-random group assignment. However, ANOVAs revealed no significant baseline differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the dependent variables that later showed a change, suggesting that the observed effects—particularly the reduction in functional impairment—are unlikely to be solely attributable to uncontrolled pre-existing group differences. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that unmeasured confounding variables may still be present, and future studies should adopt fully randomised designs to strengthen causal inference.
Second, as previously mentioned, a six-week intervention consisting of two-hour sessions may be too limited to consistently enhance self-regulation abilities and translate them into increased pro-environmental behavioural engagement. Evidence from mindfulness-based interventions suggests that improvements in self-regulation are closely tied to regular, sustained practice integrated into daily life [82]. To better capture the effects of MMM training on self-regulation in the context of the climate crisis, future studies should incorporate structured self-practice, supported by periodic reinforcement sessions, and extend the assessment period beyond six months to evaluate long-term impact. This may also help prevent the dissipation of intervention effects currently observed at the follow-up assessment.
Another limitation pertains to the measures selected to assess certain variables in our study. For instance, the two measures of pro-environmental behaviour used were self-reported, which could introduce assessment bias or social desirability bias. Additionally, the algorithm behind the carbon footprint calculator provided by the French Agency for Ecological Transition is frequently updated, meaning some of the observed changes across the three assessments might have been influenced by these internal refinements. Finally, to measure self-regulation, we used two tasks assessing executive functions and a self-report measure of dispositional mindfulness. This choice was guided by evidence that executive functions underpin self-regulation and that different facets of dispositional mindfulness indicate enhanced self-regulation skills in cognitive, emotional, and behavioural domains. However, the absence of a differential effect of MMM on self-regulation measures may indicate that these general assessment tools were not sensitive enough to capture the specific benefits of MMM on emotional responses to the climate crisis. This interpretation is supported by contrasting self-report data from the post-intervention survey, which suggest that MMM enhanced participants’ adaptive coping. To improve the internal validity of our findings, future research might benefit from integrating other more established global measures of self-regulation, such as, for instance, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A [83]) or instruments that more directly assess context-specific emotional regulation. Additionally, including measures of metacognition could serve as a relevant proxy, as MMM exercises specifically target individuals’ capacity to monitor, plan, evaluate, and adapt their cognitive strategies when dealing with complex and stress-inducing situations such as the climate crisis. Such skills are supported by executive functions but, possibly, may be more accurately captured through the lens of a metacognition measure.
Finally, the absence of a placebo group and the lack of control for important baseline factors, such as prior activism or existing levels of climate concern, represent limitations, as they may have influenced participants’ responsiveness to the intervention and confounded the interpretation of the results. However, we ensured that the groups were comparable on all assessed baseline variables, which partially mitigates this concern.
Despite these limitations, our study offers a meaningful contribution to the understanding of individuals’ reactions to the environmental crisis and of the factors that may influence them. It provides evidence supporting the value of MMM training in managing the stress that can arise from recognising the severity of the environmental crisis, particularly when such stress functionally impairs levels of anxiety. This is particularly important as climate change intensifies and its dramatic consequences become more apparent, leading to heightened concern and, in some cases, severe anxiety among individuals globally. Promoting psychological resilience through targeted education and self-regulation training may help individuals remain engaged and capable of responding adaptively to the crisis. However, the findings on the effects of the MMM intervention on pro-environmental behaviour and underlying self-regulation skills were inconclusive. This limits our ability to clearly identify the mechanisms responsible for the observed improvements in emotional regulation, or to determine whether these improvements could support more problem-focused coping strategies aimed at addressing the climate crisis. This highlights the need for further research to clarify the mechanisms through which MMM training may influence self-regulation skills and shape emotional and behavioural responses to the climate crisis. It also calls for an investigation into whether these effects can foster sustained, problem-focused engagement over time.
The findings carry important practical implications for the development of educational and psychological interventions addressing individual responses to the climate crisis. First, they highlight the need for caution when designing programmes or campaigns aimed solely at increasing environmental knowledge, as these may inadvertently impact mental health and undermine individuals’ capacity to respond constructively. Second, the results suggest that effective interventions should combine content-based education—focusing on the causes, consequences, and solutions to climate change—with the development of psychological competencies, such as the ability to manage distress and translate concern into meaningful action. In this regard, while the absence of a significant behavioural difference between the two groups may raise questions about the practical utility of MMM in directly fostering pro-environmental action, its contribution should be interpreted within a broader psychological context. When climate-related distress becomes overwhelming, it can impair functioning, trigger maladaptive coping strategies such as avoidance or denial, and ultimately undermine action. From this perspective, MMM’s ability to reduce functional impairment and promote adaptive emotional responses represents a meaningful contribution. This is particularly relevant when MMM is integrated into broader interventions that also aim to build behavioural agency. Its benefits may be especially relevant for highly engaged individuals—such as climate activists or climate scientists—who may be more vulnerable to severe climate change anxiety. At the same time, it holds value for the wider population, given the projected rise in climate-related distress as climate impacts become more frequent and tangible. Rather than replacing knowledge-focused strategies, MMM offers a complementary approach that supports the emotional resilience needed to sustain long-term engagement with the climate crisis.
Finally, in line with the socio-formation theory of sustainable social development [84,85], our findings emphasise the importance of developing complex thinking and transversal competencies to address an intricate collective challenge like the climate crisis. The demonstrated benefits of self-regulation training in enhancing emotional resilience and adaptive coping facing the climate crisis suggest that fostering these personal competencies is essential for empowering individuals as active participants in sustainability efforts. This underscores that promoting sustainable development requires not only knowledge and structural changes but also the cultivation of internal skills that enable individuals to critically reflect on such knowledge, manage their emotions, and take responsible action within their social and cultural contexts.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that increasing individuals’ knowledge about the climate crisis effectively strengthens pro-environmental attitudes and may encourage certain easily modifiable behaviours. However, this greater awareness and more detailed understanding of the crisis is also associated with increased functional impairment due to climate anxiety—unless individuals possess strong self-regulation capacities or receive targeted training designed to enhance these abilities. These findings underscore the importance of integrating self-regulation training as a way to buffer the emotional toll that can accompany increased climate-related knowledge. Pairing environmental education with psychological tools that foster adaptive coping thus appears essential to support constructive engagement and individual contributions to broader sustainability goals. This integrative approach may be particularly valuable not only for highly engaged individuals at risk of eco-paralysis but also for the general public, as climate-related distress is likely to intensify with the increasing visibility and frequency of climate impacts.

Author Contributions

S.L.C.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. C.L.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation. J.F.: Conceptualisation, Supervision. S.G.C.: Conceptualisation, Writing—Reviewing and Editing. A.R.: Conceptualisation, Supervision. L.S.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma (19.2024, approved on 12 June 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, ChatGPT Plus) to edit parts of the manuscript and improve the English language. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; p. 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Meteorological Organisation. State of the Global Climate 2022; World Meteorological Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ivanova, D.; Stadler, K.; Steen-Olsen, K.; Wood, R.; Vita, G.; Tukker, A.; Hertwich, E.G. Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hertwich, E.G.; Peters, G.P. Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6414–6420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ivanova, D.; Barrett, J.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Macura, B.; Callaghan, M.; Creutzig, F. Quantifying the Potential for Climate Change Mitigation of Consumption Options. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 093001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dietz, T.; Gardner, G.T.; Gilligan, J.; Stern, P.C.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 18452–18456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. United Nations Development Programme. People’s Climate Vote; United Nations Development Programme: Oxford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Colombo, S.L.; Chiarella, S.G.; Lefrançois, C.; Fradin, J.; Raffone, A.; Simione, L. Why Knowing about Climate Change Is Not Enough to Change: A Perspective Paper on the Factors Explaining the Environmental Knowledge-Action Gap. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. World Health Organisation. Mental Health and Climate Change: Policy Brief; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayton, S. Climate Anxiety: Psychological Responses to Climate Change. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 74, 102263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Albrecht, G.; Sartore, G.-M.; Connor, L.; Higginbotham, N.; Freeman, S.; Kelly, B.; Stain, H.; Tonna, A.; Pollard, G. Solastalgia: The Distress Caused by Environmental Change. Australas. Psychiatry 2007, 15 (Suppl. S1), S95–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Heeren, A.; Mouguiama-Daouda, C.; Contreras, A. On Climate Anxiety and the Threat It May Pose to Daily Life Functioning and Adaptation: A Study among European and African French-Speaking Participants. Clim. Change 2022, 173, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Colombo, S.L.; Chiarella, S.G.; Lefrançois, C.; Fradin, J.; Simione, L.; Raffone, A. Probing Pro-Environmental Behaviour: A Systematic Review on Its Relationship with Executive Functions and Self-Regulation Processes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 92, 102153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baumeister, R.F.; Heatherton, T.F. Self-Regulation Failure: An Overview. Psychol. Inq. 1996, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Stress, Coping, and Self-Regulatory Processes. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research; Pervin, L.A., John, O.P., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 553–575. [Google Scholar]
  16. McClelland, M.M.; Ponitz, C.C.; Messersmith, E.E.; Tominey, S. Self-Regulation. In The Handbook of Life-Span Development; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nielsen, K.S. From Prediction to Process: A Self-Regulation Account of Environmental Behavior Change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bamberg, S. Changing Environmentally Harmful Behaviors: A Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carver, C.S. Impulse and Constraint: Perspectives From Personality Psychology, Convergence With Theory in Other Areas, and Potential for Integration. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 9, 312–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Whiteside, S.P.; Lynam, D.R. The Five Factor Model and Impulsivity: Using a Structural Model of Personality to Understand Impulsivity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2001, 30, 669–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blair, C.; Ku, S. A Hierarchical Integrated Model of Self-Regulation. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 725828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Contreras, A.; Blanchard, M.A.; Mouguiama-Daouda, C.; Heeren, A. When Eco-Anger (but Not Eco-Anxiety nor Eco-Sadness) Makes You Change! A Temporal Network Approach to the Emotional Experience of Climate Change. J. Anxiety Disord. 2024, 102, 102822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. O’Neill, S.; Nicholson-Cole, S. “Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement with Climate Change through Visual and Iconic Representations. Sci. Commun. 2009, 30, 355–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Salomon, E.; Preston, J.L.; Tannenbaum, M.B. Climate Change Helplessness and the (de)Moralization of Individual Energy Behavior. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2017, 23, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Clayton, S.; Karazsia, B.T. Development and Validation of a Measure of Climate Change Anxiety. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 69, 101434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hickman, C.; Marks, E.; Pihkala, P.; Clayton, S.; Lewandowski, R.E.; Mayall, E.E.; Wray, B.; Mellor, C.; van Susteren, L. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Colombo, S.L.; Raffone, A.; Simione, L. On the Relationship between Climate Change Anxiety and Pro-Environmental Behaviour: The Double-Edged Sword of Mindfulness. Mindfulness 2025, 16, 366–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heeren, A.; Asmundson, G.J.G. Understanding Climate Anxiety: What Decision-Makers, Health Care Providers, and the Mental Health Community Need to Know to Promote Adaptative Coping. J. Anxiety Disord. 2023, 93, 102654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fischer, D.; Stanszus, L.; Geiger, S.; Grossman, P.; Schrader, U. Mindfulness and Sustainable Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review of Research Approaches and Findings. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 544–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thiermann, U.B.; Sheate, W.R. The Way Forward in Mindfulness and Sustainability: A Critical Review and Research Agenda. J. Cogn. Enhanc. 2021, 5, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bao, X.; Xue, S.; Kong, F. Dispositional Mindfulness and Perceived Stress: The Role of Emotional Intelligence. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 78, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Coffey, K.A.; Hartman, M.; Fredrickson, B.L. Deconstructing Mindfulness and Constructing Mental Health: Understanding Mindfulness and Its Mechanisms of Action. Mindfulness 2010, 1, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feltman, R.; Robinson, M.D.; Ode, S. Mindfulness as a Moderator of Neuroticism–Outcome Relations: A Self-Regulation Perspective. J. Res. Personal. 2009, 43, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brown, K.W.; Goodman, R.J.; Inzlicht, M. Dispositional Mindfulness and the Attenuation of Neural Responses to Emotional Stimuli. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2013, 8, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 822–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kabat-Zinn, J. Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2003, 10, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wamsler, C.; Brink, E. Mindsets for Sustainability: Exploring the Link Between Mindfulness and Sustainable Climate Adaptation. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. A Model of Behavioral Self-Regulation. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2012; pp. 505–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Berkman, E.T. Self Regulation Training. In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and Applications, 3rd ed.; Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gunzenhauser, C.; Nückles, M. Training Executive Functions to Improve Academic Achievement: Tackling Avenues to Far Transfer. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 624008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gollwitzer, P.M. Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cross, A.; Sheffield, D. Mental Contrasting for Health Behaviour Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effects and Moderator Variables. Health Psychol. Rev. 2019, 13, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Berkman, E.T. Self-Regulation Training. In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and Applications; Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bashir, N.Y.; Wilson, A.E.; Lockwood, P.; Chasteen, A.L.; Alisat, S. The Time for Action Is Now: Subjective Temporal Proximity Enhances Pursuit of Remote-Future Goals. Soc. Cogn. 2014, 32, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loy, L.S.; Wieber, F.; Gollwitzer, P.M.; Oettingen, G. Supporting Sustainable Food Consumption: Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII) Aligns Intentions and Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Diamond, A.; Ling, D.S. Review of the Evidence on, and Fundamental Questions About, Efforts to Improve Executive Functions, Including Working Memory. In Cognitive and Working Memory Training; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 143–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guendelman, S.; Medeiros, S.; Rampes, H. Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation: Insights from Neurobiological, Psychological, and Clinical Studies. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 208068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tang, Y.-Y.; Hölzel, B.K.; Posner, M.I. The Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2015, 16, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ray, T.N.; Franz, S.A.; Jarrett, N.L.; Pickett, S.M. Nature Enhanced Meditation: Effects on Mindfulness, Connectedness to Nature, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 864–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grabow, M.; Bryan, T.; Checovich, M.M.; Converse, A.K.; Middlecamp, C.; Mooney, M.; Torres, E.R.; Younkin, S.G.; Barrett, B. Mindfulness and Climate Change Action: A Feasibility Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Riordan, K.M.; MacCoon, D.G.; Barrett, B.; Rosenkranz, M.A.; Chungyalpa, D.; Lam, S.U.; Davidson, R.J.; Goldberg, S.B. Does Meditation Training Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior? A Cross-Sectional Comparison and a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 84, 101900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Geiger, S.M.; Fischer, D.; Schrader, U.; Grossman, P. Meditating for the Planet: Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention on Sustainable Consumption Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 1012–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Heatherton, T.F.; Wagner, D.D. Cognitive Neuroscience of Self-Regulation Failure. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2011, 15, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Blair, C.; Ursache, A. A Bidirectional Model of Executive Functions and Self Regulation. In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and Applications, 2nd ed.; Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 300–320. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hofmann, W.; Friese, M.; Strack, F. Impulse and Self-Control From a Dual-Systems Perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 4, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Fradin, J.; Aalberse, M.; Gaspar, L.; Lefrançois, C.; Lemoullec, F. Mieux Vivre Avec Les Neurosciences: L’intelligence Du Stress; Eyrolles: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fornette, M.-P.; Bardel, M.-H.; Lefrançois, C.; Fradin, J.; Massioui, F.E.; Amalberti, R. Cognitive-Adaptation Training for Improving Performance and Stress Management of Air Force Pilots. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2012, 22, 203–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lefrançois, C. Vers Un Nouveau Modèle Du Stress et de l’Adaptation: Étude Sur Les Élèves-Pilotes de l’Armée de l’Air. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris 8 Vincennes-Saint Denis, Saint-Denis, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  60. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Stoet, G. PsyToolkit. Teach. Psychol. 2017, 44, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Stoet, G. PsyToolkit: A Software Package for Programming Psychological Experiments Using Linux. Behav. Res. Methods 2010, 42, 1096–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. ADEME. Nos Gestes Climat. Available online: https://nosgestesclimat.fr (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  64. Markle, G.L. Pro-Environmental Behavior: Does It Matter How It’s Measured? Dev. Valid. Pro-Environ. Behav. Scale (PEBS) 2013, 41, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “New Environmental Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schleyer-Lindenmann, A.; Dauvier, B.; Ittner, H.; Piolat, M. Mesure Des Attitudes Environnementales: Analyse Structurale d’une Version Française de La NEPS (Dunlap et al., 2000). Psychol. Française 2016, 61, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mouguiama-Daouda, C.; Blanchard, M.A.; Coussement, C.; Heeren, A. On the Measurement of Climate Change Anxiety: French Validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale. Psychol. Belg. 2022, 62, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Baer, R.A.; Smith, G.T.; Hopkins, J.; Krietemeyer, J.; Toney, L. Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness. Assessment 2006, 13, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Heeren, A.; Douilliez, C.; Peschard, V.; Debrauwere, L.; Philippot, P. Cross-Cultural Validity of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire: Adaptation and Validation in a French-Speaking Sample. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 61, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cragg, L.; Nation, K. Go or No-go? Developmental Improvements in the Efficiency of Response Inhibition in Mid-childhood. Dev. Sci. 2008, 11, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Diamond, A. Executive Functions. In Annual Review of Psychology; Annual Reviews Inc.: San Mateo, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 135–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Stoet, G.; O’Connor, D.B.; Conner, M.; Laws, K.R. Are Women Better than Men at Multi-Tasking? BMC Psychol. 2013, 1, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jamovi. The Jamovi Project. 2023. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  74. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants of pro-Environmental Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Giannandrea, A.; Simione, L.; Pescatori, B.; Ferrell, K.; Olivetti Belardinelli, M.; Hickman, S.D.; Raffone, A. Effects of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program on Mind Wandering and Dispositional Mindfulness Facets. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. van Valkengoed, A.M.; Steg, L.; de Jonge, P. Climate Anxiety: A Research Agenda Inspired by Emotion Research. Emot. Rev. 2023, 15, 258–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Klöckner, C.A. A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology of Environmental Behaviour—A Meta-Analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1028–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tang, Y.; Posner, M.I.; Rothbart, M.K. Meditation Improves Self-regulation over the Life Span. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1307, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Roth, R.M.; Isquith, P.K.; Gioia, G.A. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function®--Adult Version. APA PsycTests 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Luna-Nemecio, J.; Tobón, S.; Juárez-Hernández, L.G. Sustainability-Based on Socioformation and Complex Thought or Sustainable Social Development. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 2, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Luna Nemecio, J.; Tobón, S. Socio-Formative Sustainability as an Alternative Conceptualisation to Think about the Devastation of Socio-Ecological Systems. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2025, 17, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06649 g001
Figure 1. Consort flow chart for randomised control trial.
Figure 1. Consort flow chart for randomised control trial.
Sustainability 17 06649 g001
Sustainability 17 06649 g002
Figure 2. Intervention programme: schedule, objectives, activity.
Figure 2. Intervention programme: schedule, objectives, activity.
Sustainability 17 06649 g002
Sustainability 17 06649 g003
Figure 3. GMM exercises used in the training.
Figure 3. GMM exercises used in the training.
Sustainability 17 06649 g003
Sustainability 17 06649 g004
Figure 4. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on pro-environmental attitudes (NEP), food carbon footprint, and functional impairment dimension of climate change anxiety. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Figure 4. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on pro-environmental attitudes (NEP), food carbon footprint, and functional impairment dimension of climate change anxiety. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Sustainability 17 06649 g004
Sustainability 17 06649 g005
Figure 5. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on NEP over time. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Figure 5. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on NEP over time. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Sustainability 17 06649 g005
Sustainability 17 06649 g006
Figure 6. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on the global carbon footprint, food carbon footprint, and miscellaneous carbon footprint. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Figure 6. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on the global carbon footprint, food carbon footprint, and miscellaneous carbon footprint. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Sustainability 17 06649 g006
Sustainability 17 06649 g007
Figure 7. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on the functional impairment dimension of CCAS. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Figure 7. Estimated marginal means assessing the time × group effects on the functional impairment dimension of CCAS. Note: Error bars indicate confidence intervals.
Sustainability 17 06649 g007
Table 1. Independent-samples t-tests for socio-demographics.
Table 1. Independent-samples t-tests for socio-demographics.
M (SD) CGM (SD) MMMStudent’s Tdfp
Age46.2 (9.54)45.7 (9.86)0.16842.00.867
Education4.67 (1.02)4.65 (1.11)0.04542.00.964
Revenue2.48 (0.750)2.52 (0.665)−0.21442.00.832
Political orientation2.05 (0.973)2.22 (0.951)−0.58542.00.562
Note. Ha μA ≠ μB.
Table 2. Moderation effects for FFMQ facets on the relationship between group condition and change in functional impairment.
Table 2. Moderation effects for FFMQ facets on the relationship between group condition and change in functional impairment.
Moderation Estimates
95% Confidence Interval
EstimateSELowerUpperp
Group * Observing0.1300.094−0.0550.3150.169
Group * Describing0.0820.112−0.1370.3000.464
Group * Acting with Awareness0.2450.1180.0140.4760.037
Group * Nonjudging0.0020.103−0.2000.2040.983
Group * Nonreacting0.2270.172−0.1100.5640.186
Note. * indicates an interaction (moderation) effect between variables.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Colombo, S.L.; Lefrançois, C.; Fradin, J.; Chiarella, S.G.; Raffone, A.; Simione, L. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Foster Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Reduce Climate Change Anxiety in French Adults. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146649

AMA Style

Colombo SL, Lefrançois C, Fradin J, Chiarella SG, Raffone A, Simione L. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Foster Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Reduce Climate Change Anxiety in French Adults. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146649

Chicago/Turabian Style

Colombo, Serena L., Camille Lefrançois, Jacques Fradin, Salvatore G. Chiarella, Antonino Raffone, and Luca Simione. 2025. "A Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Foster Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Reduce Climate Change Anxiety in French Adults" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146649

APA Style

Colombo, S. L., Lefrançois, C., Fradin, J., Chiarella, S. G., Raffone, A., & Simione, L. (2025). A Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Foster Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Reduce Climate Change Anxiety in French Adults. Sustainability, 17(14), 6649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146649

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop