Next Article in Journal
Research on Variable Universe Fuzzy Adaptive PID Control System for Solar Panel Sun-Tracking
Next Article in Special Issue
Dual-Pathway Mediation of Self-Regulation: How Socio-Contextual Ecosystems Foster Student Well-Being in Mathematics
Previous Article in Journal
Occurrence, Composition, and Risk Assessment of Microplastics and Adsorbed Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban Drainage Sediments Along the Yangtze River, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Gentrified Rural Landscapes on Community Co-Build Willingness: The Differentiated Mechanisms of Immigrants and Local Villagers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 3
10.3390/su18031501
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

Climate Change Distress (But Not Impairment) Mediates the Relationship Between Positive Traits and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

by
Carolina Cabaços
1,2,3,*,
António Macedo
1,2,3,
Margarida Baptista
1 and
Ana Telma Pereira
1,2,3
1
Institute of Medical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-504 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Coimbra Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Translational Research (CIBIT), University of Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
3
Institute for Nuclear Sciences Applied to Health (ICNAS), University of Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(3), 1501; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031501
Submission received: 29 December 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 30 January 2026 / Published: 2 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Psychological Well-Being from the Perspective of Sustainable Development: Second Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Personality traits are essential to understanding individual differences in values, attitudes, behaviours, and cognitive-emotional reactions to climate change (CC). Prosocial traits (empathy and altruism) and nature relatedness (NR), that is, the subjective sense of connection with the natural world, have been linked both to pro-environmental behaviours (PEB) and to CC-related psychological distress. As these reactions are increasingly common in the context of CC, it is crucial to distinguish their adaptive components from their maladaptive ones, namely, by identifying which psychological predictors most strongly promote PEB, in order to design targeted interventions and communication strategies that effectively foster sustainable action. This study examined whether CC-worry, CC-distress, and CC-impairment mediate the relationships between prosocial traits, NR, and PEB. A community sample of 577 adults (mean age = 32.62 ± 14.71 years; 64.6% women) completed self-report measures of the abovementioned study variables, and a multiple mediation model using structural equation modelling was tested. Prosocial traits and NR were positively associated with CC-related psychological distress and PEB, and CC-worry and CC-distress showed significant mediating roles, whereas CC-impairment did not. The model explained 40% of PEB’s variance. Overall, CC-worry and CC-distress appear to function as adaptive, motivational processes that link positive traits and nature connection to environmental action, while CC-impairment reflects a maladaptive, unconstructive response that may index the more pathological end of climate change-related psychological distress.

1. Introduction

1.1. Need for Climate Change Mitigation

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change (CC) as the long-term shift in temperature and weather patterns across the globe [1]. Although climate variability is a natural phenomenon throughout Earth’s history, current global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate. Specifically, surface temperatures since the 1970s have risen faster than in any 50-year period over the last 2000 years, with the average global surface temperature now approximately 1.1 °C higher than in 1850–1900 [1]. This warming is primarily attributable to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, which are the backbone of modern societies [1].
The consequences of this unprecedented increase are severe and multifaceted. Ocean temperatures are rising; polar ice caps are melting—a phenomenon consistently observed since the 1990s—and sea levels continue to rise alongside accelerating ocean acidification. These changes have already manifested in an increased frequency of extreme weather events since the 1950s and irreversible ecosystem disruptions, with widespread species loss, desertification, and land degradation. Additionally, these alterations have precipitated acute reductions in food and water security, with severe water scarcity now affecting approximately half of the world’s population for at least part of the year [2].
Recent epidemiological evidence underscores the severity of this crisis: approximately 37% of heat-related deaths are now attributable to human-caused CC [3], and in 2020, 98 million additional people experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity compared to the 1981–2010 baseline period [4]. Furthermore, over 150,000 deaths and 5 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) annually can be attributed to CC, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization (WHO) projects an additional 250,000 deaths by 2050 due to CC-related outcomes, including extreme weather events, heat-related illness, respiratory illness, waterborne diseases, malnutrition, and mental health disorders [5]. Thus, CC represents one of humanity’s most pressing threats, demanding urgent mitigation action.
Although structural mitigation policies and technological innovations are indispensable, they must be complemented by individual and collective actions to achieve the emission reductions required to meet international climate targets. At the individual level, people can adopt pro-environmental mitigation strategies, including plant-based diets, renewable energy use, public transportation use, energy-efficient appliances, and energy-conserving behaviours [6]. At the societal level, citizens can support green policies, advocate for ambitious climate goals, and promote technological and systemic changes aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [1].
Yet despite mounting evidence on the health and economic impacts of CC, substantial gaps remain in understanding which psychological factors may promote sustained pro-environmental behaviour (PEB). This gap limits the ability to design targeted, evidence-based interventions and communication strategies that can effectively mobilise citizens without exacerbating maladaptive forms of climate-related distress.
To understand the degree of involvement in mitigation actions and promote sustained pro-environmental behaviour, it is also important to consider individual differences in psychological adaptation to CC, that is, the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural strategies people use to cope with the anxiety, depression, and anger resulting from the climate crises [7].
Importantly, perceptions of climate change and engagement in pro-environmental behaviour are shaped by national and cultural specificities. In Portugal, available evidence indicates that, although expressed concern about climate change is relatively high, exceeding that reported in many other European countries [8], levels of knowledge and understanding regarding its causes, impacts, and response options remain comparatively low, falling below the European average. Reported engagement in behavioural changes to address climate change is also relatively low, with the lack of financial resources, time constraints, and insufficient information frequently identified as perceived barriers [9]. At the institutional level, this gap is reflected in local governance processes: while Portuguese municipalities increasingly recognise the relevance of climate change, mitigation and adaptation strategies are often weakly integrated into local planning frameworks and constrained by limited resources, competing policy priorities, and institutional capacity [10]. Taken together, these findings highlight a discrepancy between concern, knowledge, and action in the Portuguese context, supporting the relevance of examining factors associated with individual engagement in pro-environmental behaviour within this specific national setting.

1.2. Climate Change Psychological Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation

This environmental crisis impacts global psychological well-being and mental health, both directly and indirectly. Levels of CC-distress, that is, the negative cognitions and emotions associated with the environment and CC [7], are increasing [11,12]. In addition to the direct impacts of CC on mental health, resulting, for example, from losses and traumas caused by extreme weather events (floods, droughts, fires, and heatwaves [13]), indirect impacts also result from CC-distress [7].
CC-related negative thoughts and emotions may be so intense, frequent, and pervasive that they lead to significant subjective suffering and undermine personal functioning, namely, the ability to work, attend school, or maintain relationships [14]. CC-impairment, unlike CC-distress, which can be adaptive, has been essentially considered a maladaptive psychological reaction, warranting clinical intervention [7,14].
Despite this important distinction, relatively few studies have examined if and how CC-distress and CC-impairment are differentially associated to PEB. By empirically disentangling these two dimensions, we may better understand to what extent and under what conditions psychological reactions to CC may motivate/stimulate or paralyse/inhibit climate action [15].

1.3. Prosocial Personality Traits, Nature Relatedness and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Pro-environmental behaviours (PEB) may be defined as the everyday concrete actions conscientiously taken by humans to minimise their negative impact on the natural world [15,16].
Although the general population increasingly considers CC to be a serious problem and a global challenge [17], the number of people who engage in PEB is significantly lower [16,18]. Thus, it is crucial to better understand the factors that drive individuals to engage in PEB [15,16].
Multiple contextual and individual factors can contribute to this disproportion [18,19]. Among the latter, apart from gender, which plays a role in CC reactions, with women consistently exhibiting greater concern about CC and more frequent PEB [20], psychological factors have proven to be stronger predictors than sociodemographic factors [21,22].
Both types of PEB, whether public (for example, environmental activism and nonactivist citizenships) or private (for example, natural resources conservation, purchasing and transportation decisions) [15], are influenced by individual differences in personality [23,24]. Personality traits, as individual characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, or behaving, operate via cognitive-emotional variables, including personal values [25], beliefs (about the reality, causes, and impacts of CC [17]), environmental attitudes [26], and worry about CC [27,28]. The latter is defined as the anticipation of negative effects on personal lives, communities, and global ecosystems [29].
A meta-analysis comprising 38 studies systematised the associations of the Big Five and HEXACO traits, the most accepted structural personality models, with PE attitudes and behaviours showing that Openness to experience and Honesty-humility were the strongest predictors, followed by Agreeableness and Conscientiousness [24]. In general, research conducted since then has corroborated the relevance of Openness and Honesty-Humility, with some studies highlighting the predictive role of Agreeableness in pro-climate proactivity [30,31,32], including the most recent meta-analysis, in which more than half of the included studies (48/74) were published since 2020 [23]. Considering the facets that compose those traits, namely, the curious interest in others and in different perspectives, the sense of fairness, cooperation, and tolerance, those findings align with the already established association of prosocial traits, particularly altruism [33] and empathy [34,35] with PEB. People who score high on these traits tend to evaluate threats to collective safety, including global CC, more negatively, which may render them more vulnerable to CC-distress and more prone to CC action [2]. Although some consider PEB to be a form of prosocial behaviour that ultimately benefits all humanity [36], there is also evidence that highly pro-environmental people are not necessarily highly prosocial [37]. Otto et al. [38] suggested that connectedness to nature activates prosocial propensity in the ecological domain, as it mediated the relationship between altruism and PEB. Also, Duong and Pensini [39] found that connectedness to nature, connectedness to community, and connectedness to humanity are mediators of the positive association between prosociality (measured through Honesty-Humility) and PEB.
A 2025 study [40] comparing empathy toward humans with empathy toward nature (i.e., the cognitive and emotional ability to perceive, understand, and connect with nature, especially endangered nature [41,42]) added a relevant contribution, by clarifying that the relationship between prosocial traits and PEB depends on the specific focus of empathic concern: nature-focused empathy was a stronger predictor of a broad range of conservation intentions and behaviours, exceeding the predictive value of human-focused empathy. Empathy with nature also overlaps with other conceptually aligned constructs such as nature relatedness (NR), defined as an environmental-related disposition of being concerned and bonded with the natural world, understanding its value, and appreciating its beauty and benefits [43,44]. Individuals high in NR show greater concern for environmental issues and are more likely to engage in PEB [45,46].

1.4. Study Rationale and Objectives

The prevailing literature suggests that prosocial traits and NR influence both cognitive-emotional reactions to CC and likelihood of PEB. However, the mechanisms linking these constructs remain incompletely understood, particularly with respect to distinguishing adaptive from maladaptive dimensions of CC-psychological distress. This study aims to clarify these relationships by testing a structural equation model examining whether CC-worry, CC-distress, and CC-impairment mediate the relationships between prosocial traits (altruism and empathy) and PEB and NR and PEB. We hypothesise that CC-worry and CC-distress will show significant mediating effects, whereas CC-impairment will not mediate these trait-behaviour relationships, thus confirming the maladaptive nature of the latter.

2. Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study is part of a wider research project entitled “Climate change: psychological aspects and mental health”, approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine University of Coimbra (Ref. CE-033-2023).

2.1. Procedure and Participants

A community sample was recruited from March to November 2023 via various social media platforms by sharing a hyperlink to the study website. Those who took part were encouraged to forward the hyperlink to their own contacts aiming to gather a wide range of participants (the snowball sampling method). Participants who gave their informed consent, agreeing to take part without any compensation, completed an anonymous and confidential online questionnaire to assess sociodemographic and psychological variables.
Out of the 577 participants, 372 (64.5%) were women. Their age ranged from 18 to 65 years, with a mean age of 32.62 (± 14.71) years old. The vast majority were Portuguese (96.2%; n = 555), living in Portugal (98.6%; n = 568), mainly in urban areas (74.5%; n = 430). Regarding marital status, more than half were single (58.1%; n = 335); 35.2% (n = 203) were married/living together, and 6.1% (n = 35) were divorced. Most participants had no children (n = 348; 60.3%). Only ten (1.5%) participants had less than secondary education, and 58.6% (n = 338) had at least a bachelor’s degree. The most common professional occupations were students (42.6%; n = 246) and technicians/specialists in intellectual and scientific activities (38.6%; n = 223) (according to the Portuguese Classification of Occupations 2010 of the National Statistics Institute).

2.2. Measures

In addition to sociodemographic data, participants completed self-report measures assessing prosocial traits, nature relatedness, climate change worry, climate change-related distress and impairment, and pro-environmental behaviour.

2.2.1. Prosocial Traits

The Toronto and Coimbra Prosocial Behaviour Questionnaire (ProBeQ) [47] was adapted from the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) [48] to provide a brief measure for assessing prosocial traits. The instrument includes items referring to cognitive-emotional aspects (empathy; e.g., “I find that I am ‘in tune’ with other people’s moods”) as well as motivational and behavioural aspects (altruism; e.g., “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards him/her”). In this study, the total score was used as an overall measure of prosocial traits, given that the original psychometric study supported a second-order factor model with good fit indices [47]. The scale is composed of nine items, each evaluated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = “never” to 4 = “always”. In our sample, Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.869.

2.2.2. Nature Relatedness

We used the Natured Relatedness Scale—Short form (NR-6) [49], which captures the “self” (NR-self) and “experience” (NR-Experience) dimensions of nature relatedness. NR-Self represents an internalised identification with nature, reflecting feelings and thoughts about one’s personal connection to nature. NR-Experience reflects a physical familiarity with the natural world, the level of comfort with, and desire to be out in nature. Participants respond to statements using a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”).
Consistent with the findings from the original version, the one-factor model demonstrated an excellent fit to the data in this sample (χ2/df = 2.982, CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.982, GFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.058, p < 0.001). The standardised factor loadings ranged from 0.400 to 0.901. The internal consistency of the scale was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.841.

2.2.3. Climate Change Worry

The Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS) [7,50] is a unidimensional self-report measure consisting of 10 items rated on a Likert scale from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”) to assess the level of troubling, disturbing thoughts that people experience about CC. The scale was developed to assess proximal worry about CC rather than social or global impacts (e.g., “Once I begin to worry about climate change, I find it difficult to stop” and “I tend to seek out information about climate change in the media”). The Portuguese version presented good construct and concurrent validity [7]. In this study sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.896.

2.2.4. Climate Change Distress and Impairment

The Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale (CC-DIS) [7,14] was recently developed to distinguish CC-distress (spanning anxiety, anger, and sadness) and CC-impairment that may indicate a need for intervention. CC-DIS comprises 23 items in two subscales, with good construct validity and reliability. All items are rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in our sample were 0.852 for the overall CC-DIS, 0.897 for CC-distress and 0.853 for CC-impairment.

2.2.5. Pro-Environmental Behaviour

We used the 16-item Pro-environmental Behaviour Scale (PEBS) [51,52] to assess the adoption of individual (e.g., “I used more environmentally friendly products”), collective (e.g., “I expressed my thoughts or shared information about climate change on social media”) and political (e.g., “I wrote to a member of parliament”) pro-environmental actions. All items are rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = “never”, to 5 = “as often as I could”.
A three-factor model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data in this sample (χ2/df = 4.0741, CFI = 0.8638, TLI = 0.8382, GFI = 0.8515, RMSEA = 0.0887, p < 0.001). The standardised factor loadings ranged from 0.370 to 0.913. The internal consistency of the scale was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.865.

2.3. Data Analysis

SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0 [53], was used to conduct descriptive, mean comparison (Student T test) and correlational analysis.
The magnitudes of the product-moment Pearson coefficient correlations were examined considering Cohen’s criteria, in which magnitudes between 0.10 and 0.29 were considered weak, magnitudes between 0.30 and 0.49 were considered moderate, and magnitudes above 0.50 were considered strong, considering a significance level of 0.05 [54].
Using AMOS 30.0 [55], path analyses were performed to examine the hypothesised structural relationships among the variables, specifically the hypothesis that prosocial traits (PST) as well as NR are associated with CC-worry, CC-distress, and CC-impairment, and that the link between those positive traits and PEB is mediated by CC-worry and distress, but not impairment.
Furthermore, through the Bootstrap resampling method, the significance of the paths was analysed, using 5000 Bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals around the standardiser estimates of total, direct, and indirect effects. Significant effects (p < 0.050) were found when zero was not included in the interval between the lower and upper bounds of the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval [56].

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Skewness and kurtosis coefficients indicated that all variables under study were approximately normally distributed (Table 1). Furthermore, the data were shown to be suitable, as indicated by linearity, homoscedasticity, independence of errors, and absence of multicollinearity among the variables [57].

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Analyses

Descriptive statistics for the study variables as well as the Pearson correlations between them are presented in Table 1.
The mean comparison of all variables by gender revealed that women had significantly higher levels of PST (28.43 ± 5.12 vs. 26.14 ± 5.28, t = −5.095, p < 0.001), CC-distress (57.27 ± 9.02 vs. 52.56 ± 9.43, t = −5.899, p < 0.001), CC-Worry (29.80 ± 7.15 vs. 27.31 ± 7.80, t = −3.844, p < 0.001), and PEB (45.77 ± 10.13 vs. 43.66 ± 9.81, t = −2.418, p = 0.016). The mean scores of NR and CC-Impairment did not differ significantly between genders.
PST presented positive moderate correlations with CC-distress, CC-worry, and PEB and a weak negative correlation with CC-impairment. Correlation analyses showed that NR presented positive moderate correlations with all variables except for CC-impairment, in which correlation was weak.

3.3. Path Analysis

First, a fully saturated model (i.e., with zero degrees of freedom) comprising 21 parameters was tested to explore the potential role of these variables in the path model. The model explained 20.4% of CC-worry, 46.2% of CC-Distress, 21.4% of CC-impairment, and 40.5% of PEB’s variance.
In this model, six paths were not significant: the direct effects of NR on CC-distress (b = 0.132; SEb = 0.068; Z = 1.943; p = 0.052) and on CC-impairment (b = 0.051; SEb = 0.051; Z = 1.007; p = 0.314), the direct effects of gender on CC-impairment (b = 0.723; SEb = 0.460; Z = 1.569; p = 0.117) and on PEB (b = 0.372; SEb = 0.707; Z = 0.526; p = 0.599), the direct effect of CC-impairment on PEB (b = 0.094; SEb = 0.063; Z = 1.500; p = 0.134), and the direct effect of PST on PEB (b = 0.021; SEb = 0.071; Z = 0.298; p = 0.765). These paths were therefore eliminated, and the model was recalculated.
The readjusted model revealed that all path coefficients were statistically significant (p < 0.05) and presented an excellent model fit, with a non-significant chi-square [χ2(6) = 9.594, p = 0.143, χ2/df = 1.599] and excellent goodness-of-fit indices (CFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.988; RMSEA = 0.032 [IC = 0.000–0.067; p = 0.768]).

3.3.1. Analysis of Direct Effects

The results demonstrated the following significant direct effects: of PST on CC-worry, CC-distress and CC-impairment; of NR on CC-worry and PEB; of CC-worry on CC-distress, CC-impairment and PEB; and of CC-distress on CC-impairment and PEB (Table 2).

3.3.2. Analysis of Indirect Effects

The significant indirect effects were the following: of PST on CC-distress, mediated by CC-worry (simple mediation); of PST on PEB mediated by CC-worry or by CC-distress (simple mediations), and by CC-worry and CC-distress (sequential mediation); of NR on CC-distress mediated by CC-worry (simple mediation); of NR on CC-impairment mediated by CC-worry (simple mediation) and by CC-worry and CC-distress (sequential mediation); of NR on PEB mediated by CC-worry (simple mediation) and by CC-worry and CC-distress (sequential mediation); of CC-worry on CC-impairment mediated by CC-distress (simple mediation); and of CC-worry on PEB mediated by CC-distress (simple mediation).
Table 3 presents the unstandardised coefficients and their bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
The final model explained 20.4% of CC-Worry, 45.8% of CC-Distress, 21% of CC-impairment, and 40% of PEB’s variance, while controlling for the effect of gender (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

This study examined the psychological pathways through which prosocial traits (PST) and nature relatedness (NR) contribute to pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), testing the mediating roles of CC-worry, -distress, and -impairment. Consistent with our hypothesis, only CC-worry and CC-distress emerged as significant mediators, which reinforces the adaptive nature of these cognitive-emotional responses; impairment did not, also supporting a multidimensional conceptualisation of CC-psychological distress that distinguishes motivational concern from maladaptive disruption. This distinction is important to understand how CC-psychological reactions can either promote PEB or merely contribute to psychological burden.

4.1. The Role of Prosocial Traits and Nature Relatedness in Pro-Environmental Behaviours

Both PST and NR showed robust associations with PEB, albeit through distinct psychological pathways. Prosocial traits (empathy and altruism) influenced PEB exclusively through cognitive-emotional mediators, specifically CC-worry and CC-distress, with no remaining direct effect in the final model. This indicates that individuals high in empathy and/or altruism engage in PEB primarily because they are both worried and emotionally responsive to climate threats. It seems that their heightened sensitivity to others’ suffering and collective risks increases CC-worry and CC-distress, which in turn leads to action. This pattern aligns with classical theories linking altruism and moral-norm activation to collective goods [58], as well as with evidence showing that empathic or altruistic dispositions predict conservation behaviour and willingness to incur personal costs for environmental protection [34].
As suggested by Otto et al. [38], our study confirms that, in the context of climate change, human-directed prosocial traits require emotional activation to influence PEB. By contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, prosociality and altruism predicted adherence to protective behaviours directly, that is, independently of fear or anxiety [59,60]. This difference suggests that the nature of the threat—slow, abstract, and global, versus immediate and concrete—might modulate how prosocial dispositions are translated into action.
NR, in turn, retained a direct effect on PEB, consistent with extensive literature identifying NR as one of the strongest and most reliable predictors of environmentally responsible behaviour [46,61]. NR seems to reflect not only emotional affinity with the natural world but also an identity-based connection that integrates environmental concern into the self-concept [44,62,63]. From an identity perspective, individuals high in NR are more likely to perceive environmental harm as personally relevant, thereby increasing the likelihood that emotional responses such as worry are interpreted as calls to action rather than sources of distress [63,64]. This may explain why NR is linked to worry-driven pathways that positively predict PEB, while pathways that go through CC-distress or CC-impairment were not significant. In this sense, NR may function as a regulatory resource, enabling individuals to tolerate climate-related concern without becoming overwhelmed.
The moderate correlation observed between PST and NR in our model is consistent with previous evidence suggesting a partial conceptual overlap between human-directed prosociality and environmental concern, while also supporting their functional distinctiveness [40,65]. As outlined earlier, altruism and empathy are reliably associated with pro-environmental attitudes and intentions, yet their behavioural expression appears to depend on the specific target of concern and the psychological domain in which prosocial motivation is activated [40]. In this context, NR may be conceptualised as a domain-specific extension of prosocial orientation, reflecting what has been described as ecological prosociality [36,38,66]. This perspective is aligned with findings showing that connectedness to nature is positively associated with interpersonal prosocial behaviours, including helping, cooperation, and empathy, as demonstrated by a large meta-analysis comprising more than 34,000 participants [46]. The moderate strength of the association observed here suggests that individuals who are more prosocial toward other humans are also more likely to feel connected to nature, but that these constructs are not interchangeable and may diverge in their behavioural implications.
Adding to previous work showing that connectedness to nature mediates the relationship between altruism and PEB [38,39], our results suggest that NR provides the necessary psychological context through which prosocial motivation is translated into environmentally relevant action. Future research would benefit from explicitly examining empathy toward nature as a distinct construct and its potential mediating role in the relationship between PST and PEB. While altruism and human-directed empathy were associated with climate-related emotional responsiveness in the current model, they did not directly translate into pro-environmental action, suggesting that the target of empathic concern may be a critical factor in determining behavioural outcomes.

4.2. The Adaptive–Maladaptive Continuum of Climate Change Psychological Distress

Our results provide strong empirical support for a multidimensional and functional approach to climate change (CC)-related psychological distress, highlighting an adaptive–maladaptive continuum rather than a unitary construct. Specifically, CC-worry mediated the relationship between both prosocial personality traits (PST) and nature relatedness (NR) and pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), while CC-distress mediated the association between PST and PEB. In contrast, CC-impairment did not mediate any pathway to PEB, underscoring that only non-dysfunctional forms of psychological distress appear to retain motivational value.
Importantly, PST showed a negative association with CC-impairment, suggesting a protective role against functional disruption. Individuals higher in altruism and empathy may experience heightened emotional responsiveness to climate threats, yet they appear less likely to reach levels of distress that interfere with daily functioning. This finding aligns with research indicating that PST are often associated with better emotion regulation, meaning-making, and collective coping orientations, which may buffer against maladaptive psychological outcomes, even in the presence of elevated concern [2,67]. Thus, PST may foster an emotionally engaged but functionally resilient response to climate change.
By contrast, NR showed no significant association with CC-impairment, neither positive nor negative. This absence of association is theoretically meaningful, suggesting that a strong connection to nature does not predispose individuals to dysfunctional distress. Instead, NR appears to selectively amplify adaptive emotional responses, such as worry, while remaining decoupled from functional impairment. This supports the notion that NR may act as a psychological resource that allows individuals to tolerate and integrate climate-related concern without becoming overwhelmed, consistent with identity- and meaning-based models of environmental engagement [46,63].
CC-worry and CC-distress seem to increase the salience of climate change and mobilise sustainable behaviour. In contrast, impairment, defined as functional disruption interfering with daily life, did not predict PEB, suggesting that when distress escalates into dysfunction, it may lose its motivational potential or even inhibit action. This empirical distinction aligns with theoretical frameworks differentiating adaptive concern from pathological anxiety [68,69] and with empirical evidence indicating that moderate eco-anxiety can coexist with activism and hope, whereas severe distress or ecological grief may lead to withdrawal, hopelessness, or reduced engagement [70,71,72,73].
Notably, this pattern closely mirrors findings from research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple studies demonstrated that moderate levels of fear, worry, or distress were associated with greater adherence to public health measures, such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and vaccination, whereas high levels of anxiety or psychological impairment were linked to avoidance, fatalism, or reduced compliance [74]. Longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence further indicated that emotional responses promoted protective behaviour primarily when individuals retained functional capacity and perceived efficacy, while clinically significant distress predicted poorer mental health outcomes without corresponding behavioural benefits [75,76].
These findings resonate strongly with ours: in both pandemic and environmental crises, emotionally mediated risk awareness can motivate protective and prosocial action only when psychological functioning is preserved. By analogy, we suggest that, in the context of climate change, a slower, more abstract, yet global and collective threat, nature relatedness, and adaptive eco-emotions may operate similarly to risk perception and fear in a pandemic, guiding individuals toward protective, prosocial behaviours rather than withdrawal. The absence of a mediating role for impairment reinforces the notion that functional well-being is crucial for this motivational pathway to hold.
From a broader climate action perspective, the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive psychological responses to climate change has direct relevance for resilience, adaptation, mitigation, and recovery processes. PEB represents a key behavioural pathway for climate change mitigation, and the findings from this study suggest that such behaviour is more likely when climate-related emotional responses remain within an adaptive range. CC-worry and CC-distress appear to support psychological adaptation and resilience by sustaining engagement with climate threats without compromising functional capacity, whereas CC-impairment reflects diminished ability to maintain agency and recover adaptive functioning over time [77,78].

4.3. Implications for Intervention and Clinical Practice

Our findings have several implications for intervention, policies, public campaigns, and research. Programmes aiming to foster environmental engagement may benefit from cultivating prosocial dispositions and nature connection, as these predispose individuals to experience adaptive forms of concern that motivate sustainable behaviour. Educational and community-based interventions promoting environmental empathy, perspective-taking, and nature immersion are likely to enhance pro-environmental outcomes. Evidence from recent research supports this approach: scoping reviews of interventions for eco-anxiety highlight strategies combining psychoeducation, resilience-building, action-oriented engagement, social support, and reconnection with nature as effective means to manage eco-anxiety while promoting pro-environmental behaviour [79].
At the psychological level, emotional responses should not be pathologised by default. Moderate worry and distress can be functional, supporting engagement rather than hindering it [80]. Clinicians should, however, monitor functional impairment, which signals maladaptive eco-anxiety that may require targeted intervention. Interventions grounded in resilience-building, acceptance, existential meaning-making, and emotion regulation have been shown to reduce functional impairment while maintaining constructive engagement with environmental issues [79].
Policymakers should also recognise that CC-related psychological distress is not uniformly harmful. Rather than attempting to eliminate emotional responses to climate change, interventions should aim to help individuals contextualise and regulate these emotions, acknowledging them as understandable reactions to an existential threat while preventing their escalation into maladaptive forms. Messaging that validates concern while promoting efficacy, hope, and actionable solutions can channel adaptive emotional responses into sustained pro-environmental action, while ensuring access to mental health support for those experiencing severe distress. Moreover, engaging in pro-environmental behaviour, particularly when aligned with personal values and collective or community-based action, may positively influence psychological well-being, reinforcing the importance of interventions that integrate knowledge, emotional processing, and tangible environmental actions [12,79].
These findings are consistent with current international sustainability and public health frameworks, which emphasise that effective climate mitigation and adaptation depend not only on structural or technological measures but also on psychosocial resources that enable individuals and communities to cope, adapt, and recover from climate-related stressors. Initiatives such as the United for Smart Sustainable Cities (U4SSC), coordinated by the International Telecommunication Union, and guidance from the World Health Organization explicitly recognise mental health, well-being, and social resilience as core components of sustainable development [81,82,83]. By empirically distinguishing adaptive emotional responses from functional impairment, this study contributes to operationalising these frameworks, highlighting the importance of protecting psychological functioning while fostering constructive engagement with climate change.
In sum, our results underscore the potential of multi-level strategies, combining educational, clinical, community, and policy interventions, to harness adaptive eco-emotions for environmental action while mitigating maladaptive distress.

4.4. Limitations

The study has several limitations. Its cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and longitudinal or experimental research is needed to clarify temporal pathways. Self-report measures may introduce social desirability bias, particularly for PEB. In addition, the use of snowball sampling through online dissemination may have introduced sampling bias, as participation was limited to active internet users, potentially excluding segments of the population with limited or no online access. Our sample’s characteristics (predominantly young, female, urban, Portuguese, and highly educated) further limit generalisability across demographic and cultural contexts. Cultural factors likely influence both the expression of eco-anxiety and the meaning of environmental engagement, underscoring the need for cross-cultural research.

4.5. Future Directions

Future research should explore longitudinal relationships between traits, emotional responses, and PEB; use ecological momentary assessment to capture dynamic fluctuations in climate-related distress and daily decisions; incorporate behavioural measures (e.g., energy use, consumption patterns, and mobility choices) to complement self-report; examine cross-cultural variability in the adaptive–maladaptive distinctions of climate anxiety; and evaluate clinical and psychoeducational interventions, such as mindfulness, resilience training, or nature-based therapies, to determine whether reducing impairment can restore the motivational functions of adaptive worry and distress.

5. Conclusions

Prosocial traits and nature relatedness predict pro-environmental behaviour, both directly (in the case of nature relatedness) and indirectly, through the mediating roles of climate change worry and distress. Notably, climate change-related impairment did not mediate these trait–PEB relationships, highlighting its maladaptive character. These findings support the conceptualisation of CC-psychological distress as a multidimensional construct that spans an adaptive-to-maladaptive continuum. Adaptive climate-related cognitive-emotional responses, characterised by worry, concern, anxiety, or sadness but without functional disruption, can stimulate environmental engagement and may reflect a psychologically healthy reaction to objective threats. In contrast, functional impairment, indicative of maladaptive psychological responses to CC, appears uncoupled from environmental action and may signal the need for clinical attention or intervention.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, C.C., A.T.P. and A.M.; methodology, and formal analysis, C.C. and A.T.P.; data curation, C.C. and A.T.P.; writing—first version, C.C., A.T.P. and M.B.; reviewing, C.C., A.T.P., M.B. and A.M.; editing, C.C., A.T.P. and A.M.; supervision, A.T.P.; project administration, A.T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study is part of an ongoing research project, which was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra (Ref. CE-033-2023, approved on 23 January 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study can be available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Calvin, K.; Lee, H.; Romero, J. (Eds.) IPCC, 2023: 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; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Steg, L. Psychology of Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2023, 74, 391–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Vicedo-Cabrera, A.M.; Scovronick, N.; Sera, F.; Royé, D.; Schneider, R.; Tobias, A.; Astrom, C.; Guo, Y.; Honda, Y.; Hondula, D.M.; et al. The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Romanello, M.; di Napoli, C.; Drummond, P.; Green, C.; Kennard, H.; Lampard, P.; Arnell, N.; Ayeb-Karlsson, S.; Ford, L.B.; Belesova, K.; et al. The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Health at the mercy of fossil fuels. Lancet 2022, 400, 1619–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. World Health Organization. Climate Change and Health [Fact Sheet]; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health (accessed on 9 December 2025).
  6. Wynes, S.; Nicholas, K.A. The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 074024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pereira, A.T.; Cabaços, C.; Marques, C.C.; Araújo, A.I.; Macedo, A. Perfectionism and Cognitive and Emotional Reactions to Climate Change and Psychological Distress. Sustainability 2024, 16, 19221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 513: Climate Change–Portugal; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2739 (accessed on 15 January 2026).
  9. Carvalho, A.; Schmidt, L.; Santos, F.D.; Delicado, A. Climate change research and policy in Portugal. WIREs Clim. Change 2014, 5, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Campos, I.; Guerra, J.; Gomes, J.F.; Schmidt, L.; Alves, F.; Vizinho, A.; Lopes, G.P. Understanding climate change policy and action in Portuguese municipalities: A survey. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ballew, M.T.; Uppalapati, S.S.; Myers, T.; Carman, J.; Campbell, E.; Rosenthal, S.A.; Kotcher, J.E.; Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E. Climate change psychological distress is associated with increased collective climate action in the U.S. NPJ Clim. Action 2024, 3, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sheate, B. Climate change and mental health: The rising tide of eco-distress. Perspect. Public Health 2025, 145, 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lawrance, E.L.; Thompson, R.; Newberry Le Vay, J.; Page, L.; Jennings, N. The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence, and its Implications. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2022, 34, 443–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hepp, J.; Klein, S.A.; Horsten, L.K.; Urbild, J.; Lane, S.P. Introduction and behavioral validation of the climate change distress and impairment scale. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 21468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dono, J.; Webb, J.; Richardson, B. The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bourke, A.; Jabbour, S.; Martin, A.; Walsh, L.; Hadfield, K. Understanding climate change attitudes in Europe: A systematic review using social ecological framework. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2025, 9, 100245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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]
  19. Schultz, P.W. Strategies for Promoting Proenvironmental Behavior. Eur. Psychol. 2014, 19, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pinho, M. Climate change anxiety and pro-environmental behaviours: Disentangling gender disparities. Front. Sociol. 2025, 10, 1589501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piao, X.; Managi, S. Determinants of pro-environmental behaviour: Effects of socioeconomic, subjective, and psychological well-being factors from 37 countries. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cipriani, E.; Frumento, S.; Gemignani, A.; Menicucci, D. Personality traits and climate change denial, concern, and proactivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 95, 102277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Soutter, A.R.B.; Bates, T.C.; Mõttus, R. Big Five and HEXACO Personality Traits, Proenvironmental Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 15, 913–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Degnet, M.B.; Hansson, H.; Hoogstra-Klein, M.A.; Roos, A. The role of personal values and personality traits in environmental concern of non-industrial private forest owners in Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 141, 102767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shen, T.; Rasdi, I.B.; Ezani, N.E.B.; San, O.T. The mediating role of pro-environmental attitude and intention on the translation from climate change health risk perception to pro-environmental behavior. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 29340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. López-García, L.; Latorre, F.; Vecina, M.L.; Díaz-Silveira, C. What Drives Pro-Environmental Behavior? Investigating the Role of Eco-Worry and Eco-Anxiety in Young Adults. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parmentier, M.-L.; Weiss, K.; Aroua, A.; Betry, C.; Rivière, M.; Navarro, O. The influence of environmental crisis perception and trait anxiety on the level of eco-worry and climate anxiety. J. Anxiety Disord. 2024, 101, 102799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Verplanken, B.; Marks, E.; Dobromir, A.I. On the nature of eco-anxiety: How constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global warming? J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Freminot, K.; Major-Smith, K.; Northstone, K.; Halstead, I.; Major-Smith, D. Associations between Big-5 personality traits, cognitive ability, and climate beliefs and behaviours: Results from a longitudinal UK birth cohort. Eur. J. Psychol. 2024, 20, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Drosinou, M.; Palomäki, J.; Kunnari, A.; Koverola, M.; Jokela, M.; Laakasuo, M. HEXACO personality dimensions as predictors of environmental attitudes, socio-moral orientations, and climate change beliefs. iScience 2025, 28, 113753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tucholska, K.; Gulla, B.; Ziernicka-Wojtaszek, A. Climate change beliefs, emotions and pro-environmental behaviors among adults: The role of core personality traits and the time perspective. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0300246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Durón-Ramos, M. Assessing Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: A Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berenguer, J. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Herrera, A.; Larsson, S. The Relationship Between Empathy as a Trait and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Sweden. Bachelor’s Thesis, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  36. Klein, S.A.; Nockur, L.; Reese, G. Prosociality from the perspective of environmental psychology. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 44, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kesenheimer, J.S.; Greitemeyer, T. Going Green (and Not Being Just More Pro-Social): Do Attitude and Personality Specifically Influence Pro-Environmental Behavior? Sustainability 2021, 13, 3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Otto, S.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Diaz-Siefer, P.; Burnham, E.; Navarro-Villarroel, C.; Neaman, A. The prosocial origin of sustainable behavior: A case study in the ecological domain. Glob. Environ. Change 2021, 69, 102312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Duong, M.; Pensini, P. The role of connectedness in sustainable behaviour: A parallel mediation model examining the prosocial foundations of pro-environmental behaviour. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 209, 112216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Raymond, C.M.; Eriksson, M.; Korpilo, S.; Carruthers-Jones, J. The effect of empathy with nature and humans on conservation behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2025, 106, 102710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tam, K.-P. Dispositional empathy with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fido, D.; Richardson, M. Empathy Mediates the Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Both Callous and Uncaring Traits. Ecopsychology 2019, 11, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Murphy, S.A. The Nature Relatedness Scale. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 715–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zelenski, J.M.; Lutz, P.K.; Passmore, H.-A.; Nisbet, E.K. Nature Relatedness Usefully Links Well-Being, the Environment, and Sustainability. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2025, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Whitburn, J.; Linklater, W.; Abrahamse, W. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aragão, D.; Cabaços, C.; Pereira, A.T.; Araújo, A.; Madeira, N.; Nogueira, V.; Macedo, A. Toronto and Coimbra Prosocial Behaviour Questionnaire—Development and psychometric properties of a new measure of altruism and prosocial behaviour in a Portuguese large community sample. In Proceedings of the 21st WPA World Congress of Psychiatry, Cartagena, Colombia, 18–21 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Spreng, R.N.; McKinnon, M.C.; Mar, R.A.; Levine, B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale Development and Initial Validation of a Factor-Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures. J. Personal. Assess. 2009, 91, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Stewart, A.E. Psychometric properties of the climate change worry scale. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stanley, S.K.; Hogg, T.L.; Leviston, Z.; Walker, I. From anger to action: Differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. J. Clim. Change Health 2021, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cabaços, C.; Macedo, A.; Soares, M.J.; Araújo, A.I.; Grave, A.S.; Pereira, A.T. Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Psychometric assessment and relationship with psychological variables in a Portuguese community sample. Eur. Psychiatry 2025, 68, S889–S890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 28.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics (accessed on 1 December 2025).
  54. Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Amos, Version 30.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  57. Field, J. Psycholinguistics: The Key Concepts; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Heberlein, T.A. The Land Ethic Realized: Some Social Psychological Explanations for Changing Environmental Attitudes. J. Soc. Issues 1972, 28, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cabaços, C.; Macedo, A.; Soares, M.J.; Araújo, A.I.; Grave, A.S.; Pereira, A.T. Adherence to the Recommendations from the Portuguese General Directorate of Health (GDH) during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fear or prosocial behaviour? Eur. Psychiatry 2022, 65, S310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shrum, T.R.; Nowak, S.A.; Merrill, S.C.; Hanley, J.P.; Liu, T.L.; Clark, E.M.; Zia, A.; Koliba, C. Pro-environmental attitudes, altruism, and COVID-19 risk management behavior. J. Risk Res. 2022, 25, 1356–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lengieza, M.L.; Aviste, R. Relationships between people and nature: Nature connectedness and relational environmental values. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2025, 62, 101984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Clayton, S.; Opotow, S. Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  64. van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yao, Z.; Li, M.; Liu, H. Cultivating Care Through Nature: A Meta-Analysis of Nature Connectedness and Prosociality. Sustainability 2025, 17, 10580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Neaman, A.; Pensini, P.; Zabel, S.; Otto, S.; Ermakov, D.S.; Dovletyarova, E.A.; Burnham, E.; Castro, M.; Navarro-Villarroel, C. The Prosocial Driver of Ecological Behavior: The Need for an Integrated Approach to Prosocial and Environmental Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Batson, C.D. Altruism in Humans; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Clayton, S.; Karazsia, B.T. Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 69, 101434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pihkala, P. Learning to live with climate change: From anxiety to transformation–Blanche Verlie (author of the book), London and New York: Routledge, 2022. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2022, 38, 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ojala, M. Regulating worry, promoting hope: How do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2012, 7, 537–561. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ogunbode, C.A.; Doran, R.; Hanss, D.; Ojala, M.; Salmela-Aro, K.; van den Broek, K.; Bhullar, N.; Aguino, S.; Marot, T.; Aitken, J.; et al. Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 84, 101887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Orrù, L.; Mannarini, S. Psychological impact of climate change emergency: An attempt to define eco-anxiety. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1375803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Qiu, S.; Qiu, J. From individual resilience to collective response: Reframing ecological emotions as catalysts for holistic environmental engagement. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1363418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Harper, C.A.; Satchell, L.P.; Fido, D.; Latzman, R.D. Functional Fear Predicts Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2021, 19, 1875–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bendau, A.; Plag, J.; Kunas, S.; Wyka, S.; Ströhle, A.; Petzold, M.B. Longitudinal changes in anxiety and psychological distress, and associated risk and protective factors during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Brain Behav. 2021, 11, e01964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Church, L.D.; Bounoua, N.; Rodriguez, S.N.; Bredemeier, K.; Spielberg, J.M. Longitudinal relationships between COVID-19 preventative behaviors and perceived vulnerability to disease. J. Anxiety Disord. 2022, 88, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Clayton, S.; Manning, C.M.; Krygsman, K.; Speiser, M. Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance; American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  78. World Health Organization. Mental Health and Climate Change: Policy Brief; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/354104 (accessed on 28 January 2026).
  79. Baudon, P.; Jachens, L. A scoping review of interventions for the treatment of eco-anxiety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kerse, Y.; Kerse, G. The effect of eco-anxiety on pro-environmental behaviors and mental well-being: A parallel mediation model. BMC Psychol. 2025, 13, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). United for Smart Sustainable Cities (U4SSC). 2022. Available online: https://u4ssc.itu.int/ (accessed on 28 January 2026).
  82. World Health Organization. Operational Framework for Building Climate Resilient Health Systems; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  83. World Health Organization. COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health: The Health Argument for Climate Action; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240036727 (accessed on 28 January 2026).
Sustainability 18 01501 g001
Figure 1. Final path model (N = 577). Note: Standardized path coefficients among variables are presented. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Final path model (N = 577). Note: Standardized path coefficients among variables are presented. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 18 01501 g001
Table 1. Descriptive and dispersion statistics and Pearson correlations.
Table 1. Descriptive and dispersion statistics and Pearson correlations.
NRCC-WorryCC-
Distress		CC-
Impairment		PEBMean
(SD)		Sk
(SE)		Ku
(SE)
PST0.34 **0.24 **0.42 **−0.11 **0.23 **27.62
(5.29)		−1.14
(0.10)		2.39
(0.20)
NR10.42 **0.36 **0.11 **0.48 **19.39
(4.79)		−0.23
(0.10)		−0.07
(0.20)
CC-Worry 10.61 **0.37 **0.57 **28.81
(7.48)		−0.23
(0.10)		0.05
(0.20)
CC-Distress 10.02 (NS)0.45 **55.59 (9.44)−0.07
(0.10)		−0.34
(0.20)
CC-
Impairment		 10.22 **17.07 (5.79)0.02
(0.10)		−0.86
(0.20)
PEB 145.02 (10.06)0.30
(0.10)		0.18
(0.20)
Note: PST: Prosocial traits; NR: Nature Relatedness; PEB: Pro-environmental behaviour; SD: Standard deviation; Sk: Skewness; Ku: Kurtosis; NS: Not significant; ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Significant direct effects.
Table 2. Significant direct effects.
Direct EffectBetabSebZp
PST → CC-worry0.0860.1220.0562.1740.030
PST → CC-distress0.2670.4770.0568.475<0.001
PST → CC-impairment−0.141−0.1560.044−3.532<0.001
NR → CC-worry0.3870.6040.0609.988<0.001
NR → PEB0.2870.6130.0758.193<0.001
CC-worry → CC-distress0.5300.6680.03916.971<0.001
CC-worry → CC-impairment0.5510.4300.03612.011<0.001
CC-worry → PEB0.3910.5360.0579.325<0.001
CC-distress → CC-impairment −0.238−0.1470.030−4.871<0.001
CC-distress → PEB0.0940.1020.0442.3420.019
Note: Beta: Standardised path coefficients; SE: Standard error.
Table 3. Significant indirect effects.
Table 3. Significant indirect effects.
Indirect EffectEstimateBias-Corrected Bootstrap 95% Confidence Intervals Lower-Upper
PST → CC-worry → CC-distress0.082[0.023, 0.139]
PST → CC-worry and/or CC-distress → CC-impairment0.030[0.004, 0.059]
PST → CC-worry and/or CC-distress → PEB0.122[0.060, 0.193]
NR → CC-worry → CC-distress 0.404[0.309, 0.493]
NR → CC-worry or CC-worry and CC-distress → CC-impairment 0.200[0.155, 0.254]
NR → CC-worry or CC-worry and CC-distress → PEB 0.365[0.284, 0.454]
CC-worry → CC-distress → CC-impairment−0.099[−0.136, −0.065]
CC-worry → CC-distress → PEB0.068[0.012, 0.125]
Note. Unstandardised coefficients reported.
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

Cabaços, C.; Macedo, A.; Baptista, M.; Pereira, A.T. Climate Change Distress (But Not Impairment) Mediates the Relationship Between Positive Traits and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Sustainability 2026, 18, 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031501

AMA Style

Cabaços C, Macedo A, Baptista M, Pereira AT. Climate Change Distress (But Not Impairment) Mediates the Relationship Between Positive Traits and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Sustainability. 2026; 18(3):1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031501

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cabaços, Carolina, António Macedo, Margarida Baptista, and Ana Telma Pereira. 2026. "Climate Change Distress (But Not Impairment) Mediates the Relationship Between Positive Traits and Pro-Environmental Behaviour" Sustainability 18, no. 3: 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031501

APA Style

Cabaços, C., Macedo, A., Baptista, M., & Pereira, A. T. (2026). Climate Change Distress (But Not Impairment) Mediates the Relationship Between Positive Traits and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Sustainability, 18(3), 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031501

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