How Do Religions and Religiosity Matter for Climate Anxiety?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “How do religions and religiosity matter for climate anxiety?” The manuscript builds on an emerging literature on climate anxiety and attempts to provide understanding for how religion plays a factor in this outcome. While I think this is an important topic of investigation, I have some issues with the research design.
The manuscript is framed as a “filling the gap” kind of study, however, the gap is not well explained. I think it may be better to frame religion and climate anxiety as an interesting puzzle that can be explained by this research. Or, setting up more clearly what the gap in the literature is that is being filled.
The theory is underdeveloped. The first three paragraphs of the theory section do not have any citations. Linking concepts together must draw on the literature, even if the theory itself is novel. I am also not clear what the theory of religion + ideology is actually saying? My sense is that the interesting insight of this research could be that conservative religious groups have less climate anxiety, and then it would need to be explained fully as to why that pattern emerges.
The second part of the theory relating to news consumption doesn’t seem to fit. If the story is about religion and ideology, why incorporate news consumption as a major part of the model? I understand controlling for it, but it doesn’t seem connected enough to religion/ideology to merit a section in the theory. If the authors have a more clear connection in mind, they should bolster that part of the argument.
My bigger issue relates to the research design. I don’t think it is useful to include so many covariates and interaction terms in the model even if it is sufficiently powered. The possibility of type 1 error is high. That many interactions is not adequately justified by the theory, and randomness may introduce significant findings that are not really there.
It would also be interesting to incorporate US data to capture more respondents who are evangelical/fundamentalist for whom their eschatology may influence how concerned about climate change they are.
A minor thing, but there are several instances throughout of missing words or awkward phrasing. I suggest a careful proofread.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I deeply appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such detailed observations, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity and focus of the paper. Below, I address each of the points raised:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “How do religions and religiosity matter for climate anxiety?” The manuscript builds on an emerging literature on climate anxiety and attempts to provide understanding for how religion plays a factor in this outcome. While I think this is an important topic of investigation, I have some issues with the research design. The manuscript is framed as a “filling the gap” kind of study, however, the gap is not well explained. I think it may be better to frame religion and climate anxiety as an interesting puzzle that can be explained by this research. Or, setting up more clearly what the gap in the literature is that is being filled.
I have reframed the argument, and instead of the “filling the gap” argument, I put forward the issue as a puzzle as advised, which has significantly increased the quality of theoretical discussion. The changes can be seen on lines 89-115.
The theory is underdeveloped. The first three paragraphs of the theory section do not have any citations. Linking concepts together must draw on the literature, even if the theory itself is novel. I am also not clear what the theory of religion + ideology is actually saying? My sense is that the interesting insight of this research could be that conservative religious groups have less climate anxiety, and then it would need to be explained fully as to why that pattern emerges.
Following the previous suggestion, I have restructured the literature review and theory sections, focusing only the variables of religion and ideology. Additional justifications for the study are added at the end of the section (lines 249 onwards)
The second part of the theory relating to news consumption doesn’t seem to fit. If the story is about religion and ideology, why incorporate news consumption as a major part of the model? I understand controlling for it, but it doesn’t seem connected enough to religion/ideology to merit a section in the theory. If the authors have a more clear connection in mind, they should bolster that part of the argument.
Since both reviewers noted this I decided to remove the discussion on the media.
My bigger issue relates to the research design. I don’t think it is useful to include so many covariates and interaction terms in the model even if it is sufficiently powered. The possibility of type 1 error is high. That many interactions is not adequately justified by the theory, and randomness may introduce significant findings that are not really there.
I have completely changed the model and restructured it to depict the relationships more straightforwardly. The new version can be seen between the lines 266-360. I have also updated the tables and figures. As advised, I simplified the discussion, reduced the number of variables and their interactions. The new version now has the predicted probabilities of denominations.
It would also be interesting to incorporate US data to capture more respondents who are evangelical/fundamentalist for whom their eschatology may influence how concerned about climate change they are.
Although I have tried many solutions, unfortunately, I could not find data on the US that would fit the structure of the two databases I utilised for the analysis. Instead, I tried to incorporate some findings ( see line 201, for example) to the text.
A minor thing, but there are several instances throughout of missing words or awkward phrasing. I suggest a careful proofread.
A native speaker has gone through the piece alongside the Grammarly app.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is very clear, well documented, and well organized. It addresses an important topic (climate anxiety) based on relevant research. My main criticisms are that it is overly general or vague, especially in the first sections, and that the arguments are mainly descriptive. There is a lack of robust, original theoretical claims. For example, the author argues that "the interconnectedness between ideology and religious affiliations shapes climate anxiety." This is a fine start, but they need to flesh this out more fully in order to present an original, compelling argument. Similarly, they argue that"climate anxiety ... [is] bound to cultural and political issues like denominations, religiosity, and ideology." Again, this is overly general. Similar arguments have been made in other studies; this one needs to be more direct about the distinctive contributions it makes. For example, the author could highlight from the start the ways that Muslims differ from non-Muslims, according to the survey research they cite.
More details, examples, and specific examples throughout make the argument more persuasive. This is true both of the discussion of religiosity and also of the section on news consumption, which is even less fully fleshed out.
Perhaps the most significant weakness is that the article takes up too many different arguments and topics, without fully developing any and without showing how they are connected. It contends that climate anxiety is related to religious identity, news consumption, and political ideology. These are all significant and worth exploring in depth. However, this article presents them as largely disconnected variables, with insufficient analytic discussion and a failure to show how they are connected.
The survey data here could be the basis for a strong paper, but it needs a much more coherent and original argument, perhaps focused on only one or two themes. These should be presented at the beginning of the article and developed logically throughout the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I deeply appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing such detailed observations, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity and focus of the paper. Below, I address each of the points raised:
This article is very clear, well documented, and well organised. It addresses an important topic (climate anxiety) based on relevant research. My main criticisms are that it is overly general or vague, especially in the first sections, and that the arguments are mainly descriptive. There is a lack of robust, original theoretical claims. For example, the author argues that "the interconnectedness between ideology and religious affiliations shapes climate anxiety." This is a fine start, but they need to flesh this out more fully in order to present an original, compelling argument. Similarly, they argue that"climate anxiety ... [is] bound to cultural and political issues like denominations, religiosity, and ideology." Again, this is overly general. Similar arguments have been made in other studies; this one needs to be more direct about the distinctive contributions it makes. For example, the author could highlight from the start the ways that Muslims differ from non-Muslims, according to the survey research they cite.
This point was also raised by the R1 and based on the joint recommendations I have reframed the argument, and instead of the “filling the gap” argument, I put forward the issue as a puzzle as advised, which has significantly increased the quality of theoretical discussion. The changes can be seen on lines 89-115. I also have restructured the literature review and theory sections, focusing only the variables of religion and ideology. Additional justifications for the study are added at the end of the section (lines 249 onwards)
More details, examples, and specific examples throughout make the argument more persuasive. This is true both of the discussion of religiosity and also of the section on news consumption, which is even less fully fleshed out. Perhaps the most significant weakness is that the article takes up too many different arguments and topics, without fully developing any and without showing how they are connected. It contends that climate anxiety is related to religious identity, news consumption, and political ideology. These are all significant and worth exploring in depth. However, this article presents them as largely disconnected variables, with insufficient analytic discussion and a failure to show how they are connected.The survey data here could be the basis for a strong paper, but it needs a much more coherent and original argument, perhaps focused on only one or two themes. These should be presented at the beginning of the article and developed logically throughout the paper.
I have revised the manuscript to include additional details and specific examples in the discussion of religiosity and news consumption. In particular, I elaborated on how religiosity manifests in varying levels of climate anxiety across denominations, supported by specific examples from the survey data. Similarly, the section on news consumption now provides a more nuanced analysis, linking patterns of media engagement with religious and ideological frameworks to better illustrate their impact on climate anxiety.
To address your concern about the manuscript covering too many topics without clear connections, I restructured the paper to concentrate on the interaction between religiosity and political ideology as the primary themes, and remove the section on media. This focused approach allows for a more coherent narrative and a deeper exploration of how these dimensions shape climate anxiety.
I added a comprehensive section in the discussion that explicitly connects the variables. This includes a detailed analysis of how religious identity and political ideology interact to shape climate anxiety. These connections are now clearly articulated and supported by theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.
The revised manuscript emphasizes a more original and focused argument, presenting religiosity and political ideology as interlinked dimensions that collectively influence climate anxiety. This argument is introduced in the introduction and logically developed throughout the paper, ensuring a consistent and persuasive narrative.
Moreover, I have completely changed the model and restructured it to depict the relationships more straightforwardly. The new version can be seen between the lines 266-360. I have also updated the tables and figures. As advised, I simplified the discussion, reduced the number of variables and their interactions. The new version now has the predicted probabilities of denominations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSecond review of manuscript titled, “How Do Religions and Religiosity Matter for Climate Anxiety?” I appreciate the author responding to each of my comments and endeavoring to significantly revise the manuscript. The author fully addressed my concerns and I support publication of this manuscript in the journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery good revisions!
