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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study entitled “Enhancing Pro-Environmental Engagement and Reducing Climate Change Anxiety: The Role of Environmental Education and Self-Regulation Training” addresses the issue of eco-anxiety and the gap between environmental knowledge and action. The manuscript is well structured and represents an interesting and relevant contribution to the fields of environmental psychology and mental health in the context of climate change.

Specifically, the study investigates the effectiveness of a combined intervention involving environmental education and self-regulation training intervention, the Mental Mode Management (MMM), in fostering pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours while reducing climate change-related anxiety. The findings suggest that incorporating self-regulation strategies into environmental education initiatives may foster a more resilient and adaptive psychological response to the climate crisis. The integration of education and self-regulation is a novel and innovative approach. Moreover, the experimental design is clearly articulated, methodologically sound, and appropriate for the research objectives.

In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions.

 

Please find my specific comments below:

1. Figure 3: The figure is not visually clear. I suggest improving it by providing a clearer representation of confidence intervals.
2. The results indicate that the effects of the MMM intervention are somewhat selective and not sustained over time. I recommend discussing this point in greater depth and offering suggestions for how future studies might address these limitations.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their helpful suggestions and appreciate the positive evaluation of our manuscript. Hear are our responses to their comments.

Comment 1. Figure 3: The figure is not visually clear. I suggest improving it by providing a clearer representation of confidence intervals.

Response 1. Thank you for this suggestion. We have reviewed all figures reporting ANOVA results to ensure consistent labeling and the inclusion of confidence intervals.

Comment 2. The results indicate that the effects of the MMM intervention are somewhat selective and not sustained over time. I recommend discussing this point in greater depth and offering suggestions for how future studies might address these limitations.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable input. In line with suggestions from other reviewers, we have expanded the discussion to address the limitations of a six-week intervention and included recommendations for promoting longer-term benefits (lines 573-582). We also discussed this point in relation to the intervention’s impact on pro-environmental behaviours. Finally, we have more clearly integrated suggestions throughout the discussion on how future studies may address the various limitations identified.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

1. Suggestion: Include key elements that could increase citation potential: “Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Boost Pro-Environmental Engagement and Mitigate Climate-Change Anxiety in French Adults.”

Abstract
2. Suggestion: Be very precise about what increased in both groups (e.g., attitudes, food-related emissions) and what did not (e.g., PEBS, global carbon footprint).
3. Suggestion: Structure the abstract according to Background – Methods – Results – Conclusions.
4. Suggestion: Specify the 2 × 2 design, N=44 (CG=22; MMM=22), key measures, and include effect sizes such as η² or Cohen’s d. Add the effect size and statistical power.

Introduction
5. Suggestion: Consider whether existing literature on MMM directly predicts improvements in the specific measures of executive function and mindfulness used, or whether these were selected as the best available proxies; cite recent Scopus-indexed articles accordingly.

Literature Review
6. Suggestion: Separate the literature review from the Introduction and include it as an independent section, labeled Section 2.
7. Suggestion: The study should be grounded in a transdisciplinary theoretical model that enables deeper interpretation of results, transcending purely psychological dimensions and fostering a more global, analytical perspective. This would help address broader implications during the discussion, currently one of the study’s most significant gaps. In this regard, integrating the theory of socioformation is suggested, as it offers a transdisciplinary approach.
8. Potential Gap: The article focuses solely on individual psychology and environmental education. Although not a primary goal of the current study, referencing how these findings may inform socioformative approaches would strengthen its relevance in journals that prioritize this paradigm.
9. Suggestion: In the Discussion or Conclusions, consider briefly reflecting on how self-regulation development and climate anxiety management are crucial capacities for active citizenship and solving complex socio-environmental problems. This aligns with socioformation principles aimed at developing human talent to face the challenges of the knowledge society. If shown to be robust, the MMM intervention could serve as a tool within broader socioformative programs.
10. Suggestion: Create a figure representing the entire model and all study variables. Aim to relate the study’s core variables to socioformation as a foundational theory and to the pursuit of sustainable social development. Specifically, seek to connect the chain of knowledge → self-regulation → behavior/anxiety with socioformation and sustainable development.

Materials and Methods

11. Gap: The abstract refers to a "randomised 2×3 experimental study (N=44)", yet the description of the groups (MMM and control) and the main pre-post measurements suggest a 2×2 factorial design (Group × Time) for the primary intervention effects. The "3" likely refers to three time points (pre, post, follow-up), which may cause confusion.
12. Suggestion: Consider rephrasing as follows: "A randomized experimental study with two groups (MMM vs. Control) and three measurement points (baseline, post-intervention, and six-month follow-up) examined…" or clarify if the "2×3" refers to other factors not immediately evident.
13. Suggestion: Include the ethical approval number and clinical trial registration (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) to strengthen credibility.
14. Suggestion: Do not mention anywhere that ChatGPT was used in the writing process, as authors alone must assume full responsibility for the work.
15. Suggestion: The power calculation was based on a moderate effect size (d), but the final sample size (n=44) is below the minimum estimated requirement of 50–60.
16. Suggestion: Report actual post-hoc β and justify statistical robustness or increase recruitment efforts.
17. Suggestion: For randomization, describe the method used (e.g., software, blocking, stratification) and include a CONSORT flow chart.

Data Analysis
18. The proposed analysis plan (repeated-measures ANOVAs, moderation analysis) is appropriate for testing the study hypotheses.
19. Suggestion: In the measures section, when introducing the self-regulation instruments (EFs, FFMQ), briefly justify why MMM is expected to influence these specific dimensions, referencing MMM theory (shifting from automatic to adaptive mode).
20. Suggestion: For the MMM intervention, add a table listing the schedule, objectives, and activities of each session to facilitate replication.
21. Suggestion: Report effect sizes and statistical power for all ANOVA tests.

Results
22. Suggestion: Present results clearly, emphasizing which hypotheses were supported and which were not. Use more descriptive subheadings when possible—for instance, instead of "Effects of the intervention on individuals' reaction to climate change," use "Intervention effects on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours" and "Intervention effects on climate change anxiety."
23. Suggestion: Create a table of descriptive statistics (M, SD) by group and time point.
24. Suggestion: Separate main analyses from exploratory analyses.
25. Suggestion: Include figures displaying 95% confidence intervals instead of simple line graphs.

Discussion
26. Suggestion: Add a discussion of the study’s implications for environmental education, grounded in the transdisciplinary theory of socioformation and sustainable social development, citing SCOPUS-indexed publications.
27. Interpretation of Null/Unexpected Results:

• Gap: The lack of MMM effects on EFs and FFMQ is the weakest link in the intervention’s logic. The discussion currently suggests that the lack of behavioral change might be due to a lack of opportunities rather than self-regulation issues. While plausible, this does not explain the absence of changes in self-regulation scores.

28. Suggestion: A more critical discussion is needed to assess whether MMM, as implemented, truly improves the self-regulatory capacities it purports to target.

29. Suggestion: In the limitations section, mention the absence of a placebo group.

30. Suggestion: Add further limitations: (i) need for a more diverse sample; (ii) control of covariates (e.g., baseline anxiety levels, prior activism); (iii) replication in school contexts using a socioformative approach.

Core Mechanism of MMM and Its Measurement
31. Gap/Inconsistency: MMM is designed to enhance self-regulation skills, specifically the ability to switch from an automatic (System 1) to an adaptive (System 2) mode. However, results show that MMM did not significantly affect executive function measures (inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility) or most facets of dispositional mindfulness (FFMQ), which were presented as indicators of self-regulation. Although the "acting with awareness" facet of the FFMQ moderated the effect of MMM on functional impairment, this facet did not significantly increase as a result of MMM.
32. Suggestion: This is a critical point. The discussion must delve deeper into why MMM did not alter self-regulation measures. Are the tools insensitive to change? Does MMM theory require refinement regarding which aspects of self-regulation it affects and how they should be measured? Was the duration/intensity of the training insufficient? If MMM reduces anxiety through improved self-regulation, but this improvement is not captured by the instruments, then the proposed mechanism is undermined. Consider whether the executive-function tasks and the FFMQ truly reflect the type of mental shift MMM aims to produce.

Sample Size and Statistical Power
33. Gap: The final sample size (N=44 for the primary analysis, N=30 for follow-up) is small for an experimental design involving multiple variables and moderation analyses. Although a G-Power simulation is mentioned, the attrition is considerable and compromises statistical power, particularly for detecting small or moderate effects and in follow-up analyses. This is acknowledged in the limitations section.
34. Suggestion: In the limitations discussion, emphasize how the small sample size could have affected null results (e.g., PEBS, post-intervention global carbon footprint, and self-regulation measures). A larger sample is imperative in future research.

Suggestions for the Discussion
35. Deepen analysis of the mechanism: If MMM is effective, how does it work if not via changes in EFs or the measured FFMQ facets? Could it influence dimensions like "metacognition" or "context-specific emotional regulation" that are not captured by general measures?
36. Consider the intervention "dosage": Six two-hour sessions. Is this enough to induce measurable changes in executive functions or dispositional mindfulness, which are typically stable traits?
37. Reconsider the transience of the effects: What would be required to sustain benefits over time? Booster sessions? Integration into daily routines?

Conclusions
38. The conclusions reflect the primary findings: education increases concern (and sometimes anxiety), and self-regulation training can help manage this anxiety.
39. Suggestion: Reinforce the idea that while MMM showed promise in reducing functional anxiety, its effects on global pro-environmental behaviors and the underlying self-regulation measures were inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research.
40. Suggestion: Emphasize the importance of integrating these results into a pedagogical model such as socioformation to transform education towards sustainable social development.

References
41. Consistency: A quick check reveals no obvious inconsistencies (e.g., cited sources appear in the reference list and vice versa). The selection of literature is relevant.
42. Minor Suggestion: Ensure citation and referencing format is absolutely consistent with the target journal’s guidelines. Minor inconsistencies may be negatively viewed.
43. ChatGPT Disclosure: Transparency regarding the use of ChatGPT for language editing is considered good practice.

Additional Considerations:
44. Novelty and Contribution: The study is novel in applying MMM to the context of climate anxiety. The key contribution lies in the finding related to the reduction of functional impairment.
45. Methodological Rigor: The randomized design is a strength. Weaknesses include the sample size and the insufficient measurement of the intervention’s underlying mechanism.
46. Theoretical and Practical Impact: The study has practical implications for environmental education programs (highlighting the need to include emotional wellbeing support). Theoretical impact depends on a clearer understanding of MMM’s mechanisms.

47. Verify that all references are from Scopus-indexed sources, and that at least 50% of them are from the last two years.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and careful evaluation of our manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in helping us refine and strengthen the work, and we appreciate your contribution to enhancing the quality and rigor of the paper.

Below our answers to your suggestions.

Suggestion 1: Include key elements that could increase citation potential: “Randomised Controlled Trial of Mental Mode Management to Boost Pro-Environmental Engagement and Mitigate Climate-Change Anxiety in French Adults.”

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, we changed the title according to your recommendation.Suggestion 2: Be very precise about what increased in both groups (e.g., attitudes, food-related emissions) and what did not (e.g., PEBS, global carbon footprint).

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, we clarified these details in the abstract.

Suggestion 3: Structure the abstract according to Background – Methods – Results – Conclusions. Response 3: The abstract has been reoworked to follow the suggested format. However, following the instructions for authors of the journal, we did not include sub-headings in the abstract (from the website: “The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings”).

Suggestion 4: Specify the 2 × 2 design, N=44 (CG=22; MMM=22), key measures, and include effect sizes such as η² or Cohen’s d. Add the effect size and statistical power.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, we included the effect sizes in the abstract.

Suggestion 5: Consider whether existing literature on MMM directly predicts improvements in the specific measures of executive function and mindfulness used, or whether these were selected as the best available proxies; cite recent Scopus-indexed articles accordingly.

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now added the relevant information on lines 131-137 & 151-155. The MMM protocol was originally described in a paper (Fornette et al., 2012) and further elaborated in Lefrançois’s PhD thesis (2009). Although neither source reports on the impact of MMM training on global self-regulation or executive-function measures—instead focusing on context-specific performance and stress management—they both characterise the observed improvements as arising from strengthened executive functions and enhanced reflexive self-regulation processes.

Suggestion 6: Separate the literature review from the Introduction and include it as an independent section, labeled Section 2.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion but the paper already follows the guidelines provided by the journal.

Suggestion 7: The study should be grounded in a transdisciplinary theoretical model that enables deeper interpretation of results, transcending purely psychological dimensions and fostering a more global, analytical perspective. This would help address broader implications during the discussion, currently one of the study’s most significant gaps. In this regard, integrating the theory of socioformation is suggested, as it offers a transdisciplinary approach.

8. 
   Potential Gap: The article focuses solely on individual psychology and environmental education. Although not a primary goal of the current study, referencing how these findings may inform socioformative approaches would strengthen its relevance in journals that prioritize this paradigm.
9. 
   Suggestion: In the Discussion or Conclusions, consider briefly reflecting on how self-regulation development and climate anxiety management are crucial capacities for active citizenship and solving complex socio-environmental problems. This aligns with socioformation principles aimed at developing human talent to face the challenges of the knowledge society. If shown to be robust, the MMM intervention could serve as a tool within broader socioformative programs.
10. 
    Suggestion: Create a figure representing the entire model and all study variables. Aim to relate the study’s core variables to socioformation as a foundational theory and to the pursuit of sustainable social development. Specifically, seek to connect the chain of knowledge → self-regulation → behavior/anxiety with socioformation and sustainable development.

Response 7-10: We sincerely appreciate these insightful and constructive suggestions regarding the integration of a transdisciplinary theoretical framework such as socioformation. We agree that socioformation offers a valuable lens for addressing complex socio-environmental challenges and for framing the development of individual and collective competencies in a broader societal context. However, we respectfully note that the primary aim and design of the present study were situated within a psychological and behavioral science framework, focusing specifically on the effects of Mental Mode Management (MMM) training on individual-level outcomes such as pro-environmental engagement and climate-related emotional responses. As such, a full integration of socioformation as a guiding theoretical model—though highly relevant and worthy of further exploration—goes beyond the scope and empirical focus of this study. That said, in recognition of the broader relevance of our findings, we have made the effort to reference the theory of socioformation in the Implications section of the Discussion. In doing so, we briefly situate our results within the context of sustainable social development and outline how self-regulation and emotional resilience—targeted through MMM—could contribute meaningfully to the goals of socioformative approaches, especially in the development of active, ethically engaged citizens capable of addressing complex environmental problems. We have also carefully considered the suggestion to develop a visual model connecting the variables to socioformation and sustainable development. Given the focused scope and sample size of our study, we believe such a figure might imply a level of theoretical integration and generalizability that goes beyond our current findings. Nonetheless, we recognize the value of such a model for future research and have noted it as a direction for subsequent, more theoretically expansive work. Once again, we thank the reviewer for these forward-looking suggestions, which we believe will help guide future studies aiming to bridge individual psychological processes with broader educational and societal transformation frameworks such as socioformation. Please refer also to our response to suggestion 26 and suggestions 40.

Suggestions 11 & 12 The abstract refers to a "randomised 2×3 experimental study (N=44)", yet the description of the groups (MMM and control) and the main pre-post measurements suggest a 2×2 factorial design (Group × Time) for the primary intervention effects. The "3" likely refers to three time points (pre, post, follow-up), which may cause confusion.Consider rephrasing as follows: "A randomized experimental study with two groups (MMM vs. Control) and three measurement points (baseline, post-intervention, and six-month follow-up) examined…" or clarify if the "2×3" refers to other factors not immediately evident.

Response 11 & 12: We reframed the study as a 2×2 randomised controlled trial as the follow-up was mainly used as a measure of the durability of intervention effects rather than as an additional condition (see title and abstract).

Suggestion 13: Include the ethical approval number and clinical trial registration (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) to strengthen credibility.

Response 13: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, this study was not registered as it does not constitute a typical clinical trial - it was conducted with a non-clinical aim, with non-clinical participants and did not involve medical or therapeutic interventions. The ethical approval information was inserted in the text on lines 170-171.

Suggestion 14: Do not mention anywhere that ChatGPT was used in the writing process, as authors alone must assume full responsibility for the work.

Response 14: While we take full responsibility for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content, artificial intelligence (namely ChatGPT) was used to improve the writing of the paper in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on the use of AI and AI-assisted technology in manuscript preparation and as indicated in the MDPI guidelines for authors.

Suggestion 15: The power calculation was based on a moderate effect size (d), but the final sample size (n=44) is below the minimum estimated requirement of 50–60.

Response 15: Indeed, although we initially recruited 67 participants, attrition reduced the final sample to 44. Despite this smaller-than-anticipated cohort, we proceeded because earlier MMM studies have observed moderate effect sizes with samples as small as 22 participants. We have anyhow adddressed this point as a limitation of our study.

Suggestion 16: Report actual post-hoc β and justify statistical robustness or increase recruitment efforts.

Response 16: We thank the reviewer for this important point. We conducted a post-hoc power analysis, which indicated a sufficient power (β) for detecting a moderate-to-large effect size with our final sample size. While this falls slightly below the a-priori hypothesized power, the observed effect sizes in our study were in line with those reported in previous MMM research. We have added this point in the revised manuscript. Given practical constraints and the nature of the experimental design, increasing recruitment at this stage was not feasible.

Suggestion 17: For randomization, describe the method used (e.g., software, blocking, stratification) and include a CONSORT flow chart.

Response 17: Thank you for this suggestions which helps clarifying the procedure of the RCT. This information was added in the text on lines 179-193 and a consort flow chart was integrated (see Figure 1).

Suggestions 18:  The proposed analysis plan (repeated-measures ANOVAs, moderation analysis) is appropriate for testing the study hypotheses.`

Response 18: We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment.
Suggestion 19 : In the measures section, when introducing the self-regulation instruments (EFs, FFMQ), briefly justify why MMM is expected to influence these specific dimensions, referencing MMM theory (shifting from automatic to adaptive mode).

Response 19: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now made explicit in Paragraph 1.3 why MMM is hypothesised to enhance self-regulation skills, and in each measures sub-section we have further detailed how—and why—each instrument (e.g. FFMQ facets, executive-function tasks) specifically indexes self-regulatory capacity.

Suggestion 20: For the MMM intervention, add a table listing the schedule, objectives, and activities of each session to facilitate replication.

Response 20: Thank you for this suggestion, we have added a table listing the required information.

Suggestion 21: Report effect sizes and statistical power for all ANOVA tests.

Response 21: effect sizes are reported for all significant ANOVA tests – we ensured to harmonise the reported results and used in all anova tests partial η².

Suggestion 22: Present results clearly, emphasizing which hypotheses were supported and which were not. Use more descriptive subheadings when possible—for instance, instead of "Effects of the intervention on individuals' reaction to climate change," use "Intervention effects on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours" and "Intervention effects on climate change anxiety."

Response 22: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the subheading titles accordingly. However, we have decided not to introduce the hypotheses in the Results section, as we are concerned it would further lengthen an already dense text. Additionally, each hypothesis is already clearly addressed and discussed in the Discussion section.

Suggestion 23: Create a table of descriptive statistics (M, SD) by group and time point.

Response 23: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful consideration, and to maintain conciseness, we decided not to include separate tables of descriptive statistics, as this would require substantial space—given the presence of categorical, continuous, and ordinal variables requiring different tables—without adding crucial information about the sample composition, especially since we have ensured that the two groups were comparable.

Suggestion 24: Separate main analyses from exploratory analyses.

Response 24: Thank you for this suggestion. The analysis are already separated between main analysis and moderation analysis. There are no exploratory analysis.

Suggestion 25: Include figures displaying 95% confidence intervals instead of simple line graphs.

Response 25: Thank you for this suggestion. We have reviewed all figures reporting ANOVA results to ensure consistent labeling and the inclusion of confidence intervals.

Suggestion 26: Add a discussion of the study’s implications for environmental education, grounded in the transdisciplinary theory of socioformation and sustainable social development, citing SCOPUS-indexed publications.

Response 26: Thank you for your suggestion. As already discussed in our response to suggestions 7-10, the primary focus of our study is on individual-level psychological processes, which is why we have not fully integrated socio-formation as a guiding framework. However, we have incorporated a brief discussion of the link between our findings and the socio-formation theory at the end of the Discussion to highlight the broader practical implications of our results.

Suggestion 27-28. Interpretation of Null/Unexpected Results Gap: The lack of MMM effects on EFs and FFMQ is the weakest link in the intervention’s logic. The discussion currently suggests that the lack of behavioral change might be due to a lack of opportunities rather than self-regulation issues. While plausible, this does not explain the absence of changes in self-regulation scores. A more critical discussion is needed to assess whether MMM, as implemented, truly improves the self-regulatory capacities it purports to target.

Response 27-28: Thank you for this suggestions. In line with what requested by another reviewer, we have tried to better clarify our intention in suggesting that contextual factors may hinder the effect of the intervention on pro-environmental behaviour (lines 476-490). Regarding the null effect of the MMM intervention on self-regulation measures and on pro-environmental behaviour we have integrated a more detailed reflection on this point in the revised manuscript (lines 491-511).

Suggestion 29: In the limitations section, mention the absence of a placebo group.

Response 29: Done (lines 607-611)

Suggestion 30: Add further limitations: (i) need for a more diverse sample; (ii) control of covariates (e.g., baseline anxiety levels, prior activism); (iii) replication in school contexts using a socioformative approach.

Response 30: Thank you for this suggestion. We have incorporated these limitations into the revised limitations section of the manuscript.

31. Gap/Inconsistency: MMM is designed to enhance self-regulation skills, specifically the ability to switch from an automatic (System 1) to an adaptive (System 2) mode. However, results show that MMM did not significantly affect executive function measures (inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility) or most facets of dispositional mindfulness (FFMQ), which were presented as indicators of self-regulation. Although the "acting with awareness" facet of the FFMQ moderated the effect of MMM on functional impairment, this facet did not significantly increase as a result of MMM.

Response 31: Correct.

32. 
    Suggestion: This is a critical point. The discussion must delve deeper into why MMM did not alter self-regulation measures. Are the tools insensitive to change? Does MMM theory require refinement regarding which aspects of self-regulation it affects and how they should be measured? Was the duration/intensity of the training insufficient? If MMM reduces anxiety through improved self-regulation, but this improvement is not captured by the instruments, then the proposed mechanism is undermined. Consider whether the executive-function tasks and the FFMQ truly reflect the type of mental shift MMM aims to produce.

Response 32: Thank you for this suggestion, we integrated this reflection when we discuss the null effect of the intervention on self-regulation measures

33. Gap: The final sample size (N=44 for the primary analysis, N=30 for follow-up) is small for an experimental design involving multiple variables and moderation analyses. Although a G-Power simulation is mentioned, the attrition is considerable and compromises statistical power, particularly for detecting small or moderate effects and in follow-up analyses. This is acknowledged in the limitations section.

Response 33: yes indeed.

34. 
    Suggestion: In the limitations discussion, emphasize how the small sample size could have affected null results (e.g., PEBS, post-intervention global carbon footprint, and self-regulation measures). A larger sample is imperative in future research.

Response 34: Thank you for this suggestion, we have further clarified the effects of this limitation and underlined the need for a larger sample (lines 556-572)

35. Deepen analysis of the mechanism: If MMM is effective, how does it work if not via changes in EFs or the measured FFMQ facets? Could it influence dimensions like "metacognition" or "context-specific emotional regulation" that are not captured by general measures?

Response 35: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded on this point in the discussion of limitations related to our selected self-regulation measures (lines 583-606)

36. 
    Consider the intervention "dosage": Six two-hour sessions. Is this enough to induce measurable changes in executive functions or dispositional mindfulness, which are typically stable traits?

Response 36: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have integrated this reflection where we discuss the null effect on self regulation and added a paragraph on this point in the limitation section (lines 547-554)

37. 
    Reconsider the transience of the effects: What would be required to sustain benefits over time? Booster sessions? Integration into daily routines?

Response 37: Thank you for this suggestion. We have incorporated it into the revised paragraph discussing the limitations of a short intervention (lines 573 – 582)

38. The conclusions reflect the primary findings: education increases concern (and sometimes anxiety), and self-regulation training can help manage this anxiety.

Response 38: correct.

39. 
    Suggestion: Reinforce the idea that while MMM showed promise in reducing functional anxiety, its effects on global pro-environmental behaviors and the underlying self-regulation measures were inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research.

Response 39: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have more clearly highlighted this point in the final part of the discussion section (lines 621-629)

40. 
    Suggestion: Emphasize the importance of integrating these results into a pedagogical model such as socioformation to transform education towards sustainable social development.

Response 40:. As already discussed in our response to suggestions 7-10 and 26, the primary focus of our study is on individual-level psychological processes, which is why we have not fully integrated socio-formation as a guiding framework. However, we have incorporated a brief discussion of the link between our findings and the socio-formation theory at the end of the Discussion to highlight the broader practical implications of our results.

41. Consistency: A quick check reveals no obvious inconsistencies (e.g., cited sources appear in the reference list and vice versa). The selection of literature is relevant.

Response 41: Thank you for aknowledging this.

42. 
    Minor Suggestion: Ensure citation and referencing format is absolutely consistent with the target journal’s guidelines. Minor inconsistencies may be negatively viewed.

Response 41: Thank you for the update. The references have been formatted according to APA 7 guidelines, and the journal’s editing service has already integrated them into the current manuscript.

43. 
    ChatGPT Disclosure: Transparency regarding the use of ChatGPT for language editing is considered good practice.

Response 43: Thank you for aknowledging this.

44. Novelty and Contribution: The study is novel in applying MMM to the context of climate anxiety. The key contribution lies in the finding related to the reduction of functional impairment.

Response 45: Thank you for pointing this out.

45. 
    Methodological Rigor: The randomized design is a strength. Weaknesses include the sample size and the insufficient measurement of the intervention’s underlying mechanism.

Response 45: Thank you for pointing this out. We aknowledge indeed these strengths and weaknesses in the discussion section.

46. 
    Theoretical and Practical Impact: The study has practical implications for environmental education programs (highlighting the need to include emotional wellbeing support). Theoretical impact depends on a clearer understanding of MMM’s mechanisms.

Response 47: Thank you for your comment. We agree this is an important point and have added it to the conclusion section.

 

47. Verify that all references are from Scopus-indexed sources, and that at least 50% of them are from the last two years.

Response 47: Thank you for your comment. Almost all the references cited are from Scopus-indexed sources, except for those citing public reports on climate change or specific materials detailing the Mental Mode Management (MMM) training, which are essential for context. Regarding the publication dates, while not all sources are from the last two years, we believe that including older references is necessary to comprehensively cover all relevant aspects of the topic. We have, however, made an effort to balance these with more recent studies published after 2020 to ensure the work remains current.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a very relevant topic: the interaction between environmental education, self-regulation training and emotional responses to climate change. The methodology used is clear and the 2x3 experimental design is well justified. Here are some points for improvement:

 

Conceptual clarity: While key concepts (self-regulation, climate anxiety, mindfulness) are presented, some theoretical passages are dense and could benefit from more direct and accessible language for an interdisciplinary audience.

Hypotheses and results: The hypotheses are well formulated, but the discussion could go further in explaining why no differential effect on pro-environmental behaviour (H2) was observed, despite MMM training.

Null results: The lack of effects on executive functions and indicators of self-regulation requires further theoretical reflection. Could this be due to the sensitivity of the instruments? To the duration of the intervention?

Sample size and representativeness: The small sample size limits generalisability. The study acknowledges this, but it would be worth considering strategies to avoid self-selection of participants with high environmental motivation.

Language: Some long sentences make reading difficult. Editing is recommended to improve English clarity and accuracy, especially in the discussion section.

Long-term follow-up: Although a 6-month follow-up analysis is presented, effects appear to dissipate. It would be useful to consider incorporating booster sessions to maintain the benefits.

Practical applications: The study has important implications for the design of educational and psychological intervention programmes. It would be useful for the authors to include more concrete suggestions for practitioners and policy makers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the manuscript is generally well written and understandable, there are several areas where the clarity and flow of the English could be improved. Some sentences are overly long or complex, which may hinder comprehension, particularly in the discussion and theoretical sections. A careful language editing by a native English speaker or professional editor is recommended to enhance readability and ensure that the arguments are clearly conveyed.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our manuscript, and we are grateful for the insightful suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

Here are our response to your comments:

1. Conceptual clarity: While key concepts (self-regulation, climate anxiety, mindfulness) are presented, some theoretical passages are dense and could benefit from more direct and accessible language for an interdisciplinary audience.

Response 1: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have reformulated the passages expalining these key concept to make them more accessible to an interdisciplinary audience (lines 59-97)

2. Hypotheses and results: The hypotheses are well formulated, but the discussion could go further in explaining why no differential effect on pro-environmental behaviour (H2) was observed, despite MMM training.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made an effort to clarify our intention in suggesting that contextual factors may hinder the effect of the intervention on pro-environmental behaviour. (lines 491-511).

3. Null results: The lack of effects on executive functions and indicators of self-regulation requires further theoretical reflection. Could this be due to the sensitivity of the instruments? To the duration of the intervention?

Response 3. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We recognize that our initial discussion did not sufficiently elaborate on the interpretation of the null effect. We have now addressed this by integrating a more detailed reflection in the revised manuscript (lines 536-555).

4. Sample size and representativeness: The small sample size limits generalisability. The study acknowledges this, but it would be worth considering strategies to avoid self-selection of participants with high environmental motivation.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. We have integrated some ideas of strategies to avoid self selection in the limitation section (lines 570-572)

5. Language: Some long sentences make reading difficult. Editing is recommended to improve English clarity and accuracy, especially in the discussion section.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and restructured sentences that were overly long and have also asked a native English speaker to read the manuscript to ensure overall clarity and improvement in language quality.

6. Long-term follow-up: Although a 6-month follow-up analysis is presented, effects appear to dissipate. It would be useful to consider incorporating booster sessions to maintain the benefits.

Response 6: Thank you for this suggestion. In line with the suggestion of another reviewer, we discussed the limitation related to the short span of the intervention  (lines 573-582)

7. Practical applications: The study has important implications for the design of educational and psychological intervention programmes. It would be useful for the authors to include more concrete suggestions for practitioners and policy makers.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. We have integrated a paragraph discussing the practical implications of our findings and suggestions for practitioners and policy-makers at the end of the discussion section (lines 630-648)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the Article:

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

Suggestions:

ABSTRACT:

1. The abstract mentions an increase in “miscellaneous emissions.” This is a secondary finding and potentially confusing without adequate context. It is recommended to focus the abstract on the primary and most robust results: the increase in pro-environmental attitudes and the reduction in functional impairment in the MMM group.

INTRODUCTION:

2. Suggestion (Subsection 1.2): The theoretical rationale for specifically choosing “Mental Mode Management” (MMM) training over other more established self-regulation approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), should be strengthened. What unique theoretical advantage does the MMM model offer in addressing climate anxiety and pro-environmental behavior? High-impact journals require a strong theoretical justification for the chosen intervention. It is necessary to explain why MMM is potentially more suitable than other empirically grounded alternatives, beyond the fact that it is the authors’ preferred approach.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS:

3. The discussion on limitations is appropriate, but it could be more critical. The main methodological limitation (quasi-randomization) should be explicitly linked to the interpretation of the study’s central finding (the reduction in functional impairment in the MMM group). Could an uncontrolled selection bias partly explain this difference?

4. Expand on the practical implications of the main finding: the dissociation between emotional improvement and the lack of significant behavioral change. If MMM helps people feel better about climate change but not act more, what is its actual utility? It could be proposed that its ideal application is not for the general population (to promote action), but perhaps as a resilience tool for already committed climate activists experiencing burnout or anxiety.

5. Broaden the implications for the transformation of environmental education based on socioformation theory. The term “socioformación” should appear without a hyphen. Additionally, more articles from Scopus-indexed journals should be cited, as this is one of the most valuable contributions of the study: its educational implications.

CONCLUSIONS:

6. List the conclusions explicitly.

REFERENCES:

7. Complete the reference list, as it is currently incomplete. The manuscript cites 85 references, but only 81 are listed.

8. Add more recent references on socioformation from Scopus-indexed journals.

9. Remove duplicate references.

10. Carefully review all in-text citations to ensure references are complete and accurate.

Textual Errors:

At least one minor typographical error was detected. In the section Self-reported perception of the effects of the intervention, it reads "t t(42)= 2.463". A careful revision of the entire text is recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments, which helped us clarify and strengthen key aspects of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point.

ABSTRACT:

Comment 1. The abstract mentions an increase in “miscellaneous emissions.” This is a secondary finding and potentially confusing without adequate context. It is recommended to focus the abstract on the primary and most robust results: the increase in pro-environmental attitudes and the reduction in functional impairment in the MMM group.

Response 1. Thank you for this comment, we removed this secondary finding from the abstract.

INTRODUCTION:

Comment 2. (Subsection 1.2): The theoretical rationale for specifically choosing “Mental Mode Management” (MMM) training over other more established self-regulation approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), should be strengthened. What unique theoretical advantage does the MMM model offer in addressing climate anxiety and pro-environmental behavior? High-impact journals require a strong theoretical justification for the chosen intervention. It is necessary to explain why MMM is potentially more suitable than other empirically grounded alternatives, beyond the fact that it is the authors’ preferred approach.

Response 2. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion and fully agree that a strong theoretical rationale is essential when selecting an intervention model. In response, we have clarified in the revised manuscript (see lines 130-135) that the choice of the Mental Mode Management (MMM) training was driven by the specific aim of the study: to examine the effectiveness of this novel approach, developed by members of the author team, in the context of climate-related psychological challenges and pro-environmental engagement. MMM was previously tested in othe clinical and non-clinical settings, demonstrating promising results in improving emotional regulation and adaptive responses facing complex challenges. We have now expanded the manuscript to explain that MMM uniquely integrates core components of both mindfulness-based training and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This hybrid structure is designed to address not only the emotional reactivity associated with climate anxiety, but also the cognitive and behavioural barriers that often inhibit adaptive responses to environmental challenges. We believe that this integrative design makes MMM particularly suitable for the climate context, where emotional, cognitive, and behavioural processes are deeply intertwined. We thank the reviewer again for prompting us to strengthen the theoretical justification, and we hope the revised explanation addresses this concern more clearly (lines 122-128)

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS:

Comment 3. The discussion on limitations is appropriate, but it could be more critical. The main methodological limitation (quasi-randomization) should be explicitly linked to the interpretation of the study’s central finding (the reduction in functional impairment in the MMM group). Could an uncontrolled selection bias partly explain this difference?

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we have clarified the potential impact of the quasi-randomised design in the limitations section, specifically acknowledging the risk of selection bias. However, we would also like to note that the ANOVA results showed no significant baseline differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the dependent variables that later showed changes following the intervention. This suggests that the observed reduction in functional impairment in the MMM group is unlikely to be attributable to pre-existing group differences. Nonetheless, we recognise that quasi-randomisation cannot fully rule out unmeasured confounding variables, and we now explicitly highlight this in the discussion. Future studies using fully randomised controlled designs are needed to confirm these findings and strengthen causal interpretations (lines 559 – 567)

Comment 4. Expand on the practical implications of the main finding: the dissociation between emotional improvement and the lack of significant behavioral change. If MMM helps people feel better about climate change but not act more, what is its actual utility? It could be proposed that its ideal application is not for the general population (to promote action), but perhaps as a resilience tool for already committed climate activists experiencing burnout or anxiety.

Response 4. We thank the reviewer for this important and thought-provoking comment. We agree that the dissociation between emotional improvement and the absence of a significant behavioural change deserves closer examination and clearer discussion in terms of practical implications.

First, as already noted in the limitations section (lines 552-555), one possible explanation for the lack of behavioural differences between the MMM and control groups lies in the specific profile of our sample. Participants self-selected into the study based on a pre-existing interest in climate change and exhibited already high levels of pro-environmental behaviour prior to the intervention, as reflected in their comparatively low average carbon footprint. This may have resulted in a ceiling effect, limiting the room for measurable behavioural improvement and thereby potentially masking intervention-related differences. Future studies involving more diverse populations with a wider range of baseline behavioural engagement would be necessary to determine whether MMM can also promote action in less engaged groups – as already indicated in the limitation section (lines 555-557).

Second, we agree that emotional improvement without behavioural change might be seen as limited in utility if the goal is to foster climate action. However, it is important to consider that when climate-related distress becomes too severe, it can be psychologically impairing. Research increasingly shows that excessive climate anxiety may result in emotional overwhelm, disengagement, or paralysis rather than constructive action. From this perspective, the capacity of MMM to reduce functional impairment and promote adaptive coping becomes a valuable asset particularly when paired with educational or action-oriented interventions that can simultaneously build knowledge and agency while maintaining psychological well-being.

Finally, we believe this finding holds significant practical relevance not only for already committed climate activists - who are known to be particularly vulnerable to burnout and distress - but also in the broader context of a world where climate disasters are becoming more frequent, visible, and intense. As climate change anxiety is likely to increase across the general population, developing and offering tools like MMM that help individuals regulate emotional responses without diminishing their engagement will be crucial. In this sense, MMM may serve as a complementary strategy: not to replace behaviour-focused interventions, but to support the psychological resilience needed to sustain long-term commitment and action.

We introduced these important points on lines 633-647.

Comment 5. Broaden the implications for the transformation of environmental education based on socioformation theory. The term “socioformación” should appear without a hyphen. Additionally, more articles from Scopus-indexed journals should be cited, as this is one of the most valuable contributions of the study: its educational implications.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to further elaborate on the implications of our findings for environmental education from the perspective of socioformation theory. While we recognise the value of this framework - particularly in highlighting the need for complex thinking and transversal competencies to address sustainability challenges - we would like to respectfully clarify that socioformation theory was not a foundational reference in the conceptualisation or design of the present study. In response to an earlier round of review, we incorporated a paragraph in the Implications section that aligns our findings with core ideas of socioformation theory, particularly regarding the importance of cultivating internal psychological competencies - such as self-regulation, emotional resilience, and critical reflection - to empower individuals as active participants in collective sustainability efforts. We believe this addition strikes a balance between acknowledging relevant theoretical linkages and remaining consistent with the scope and aims of our empirical work. Furthermore, we would like to note that socioformation theory lies outside our primary domain of expertise. As such, we feel it would be more appropriate for future research - possibly interdisciplinary in nature - to further explore how interventions like MMM might contribute to educational transformation within a socioformation framework. We hope this clarification is helpful and satisfactory. We did however include one more reference to socio-formation in the references.

CONCLUSIONS:

Comment 6. List the conclusions explicitly.

Response 6. We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the conclusion section of the manuscript to explicitly list and clearly articulate the main conclusions drawn from our findings (lines 659-671). The revised conclusion now highlights: 1) that environmental education can enhance pro-environmental attitudes and influence certain modifiable behaviours, 2) that increased awareness of the climate crisis may heighten functional impairment due to climate anxiety, 3) that self-regulation capacities, whether pre-existing or enhanced through targeted training, play a key role in mitigating the emotional toll of climate-related knowledge, 4) that combining climate education with self-regulation training appears relevant to foster emotional resilience and enable constructive engagement, 5) that this integrative approach may be especially beneficial not only for highly engaged individuals vulnerable to burnout or eco-paralysis, but also for the general population as climate impacts become more intense and visible. We hope these additions meet the request for a more explicit articulation of our study's conclusions.

REFERENCES:

Comment 7. Complete the reference list, as it is currently incomplete. The manuscript cites 85 references, but only 81 are listed.

Response 7. Thank you por pointing this out. Something must have gone wrong when adapting from APA style to ACS as requested by the editor.

Comment 8. Add more recent references on socioformation from Scopus-indexed journals.

Response 8. Thank you for this suggestion. We conducted a thorough search in Scopus using the terms socioformation and sustainability, but we did not identify any more recent references explicitly linking the two beyond 2020. However, we have included a more recent and relevant reference on socioformation and sustainability, which - although not yet indexed in Scopus at the time of our search - is published in a Scopus-indexed journal. We hope this addition meets the reviewer’s request within the current limitations of the available indexed literature.

Comment 9. Remove duplicate references.

Response 9. Done, thanks.

Comment 10. Carefully review all in-text citations to ensure references are complete and accurate.

Response 10. Done, thanks.

Textual Errors:

Comment 11. At least one minor typographical error was detected. In the section Self-reported perception of the effects of the intervention, it reads "t t(42)= 2.463". A careful revision of the entire text is recommended.

Response 11. We were unable to locate the reported typographical error in the manuscript; nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed the entire text to ensure its precision.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job