Distress and denial: Dutch youth aged 16-35 grappling with climate change

IF 7 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.102969
Anne Margit Reitsema , Valesca S.M. Venhof , Andrik Becht , Bertus F. Jeronimus
{"title":"Distress and denial: Dutch youth aged 16-35 grappling with climate change","authors":"Anne Margit Reitsema ,&nbsp;Valesca S.M. Venhof ,&nbsp;Andrik Becht ,&nbsp;Bertus F. Jeronimus","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.102969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Climate change elicits a wide range of emotional and psychological responses, from anxiety and guilt to denial. Public and media discourse often present climate change distress and denial as opposing camps.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We move beyond this dichotomy by identifying clusters of climate change distress and denial in 1006 Dutch young adults (aged 16–35, 51.2% women, population-representative).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We measured four dimensions of climate change distress (eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, cognitive-emotional impairment, and functional impairment) and three dimensions of denial (of seriousness, personal impact, and impact elsewhere). Naturally occurring subgroups were identified using latent profile analysis. Profile differences in demographics, emotions, institutional trust, and coping strategies were examined using analysis of variance.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>We identified six profiles: burdened worriers, unburdened worriers, climate change deniers, skeptic worriers, NIMBYs (Not-In-My-BackYard), and conflicted skeptics. Despite low average distress levels, about half of the sample reported moderate to high distress, alongside varying denial levels. High-distress profiles reported more hope and proactive coping, while denial-heavy profiles were linked to fatalism, lower institutional trust, and limited engagement. Profiles differed only minimally by gender, age, income, and living environment; education showed no differences.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>By identifying six distinct patterns, this study moves beyond the activist–denier framing common in public discourse, showing that climate change distress and denial coexist in complex ways among Dutch youth. Future research should examine the stability of these profiles and include additional dimensions, such as ecological grief.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102969"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494426000708","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Climate change elicits a wide range of emotional and psychological responses, from anxiety and guilt to denial. Public and media discourse often present climate change distress and denial as opposing camps.

Objective

We move beyond this dichotomy by identifying clusters of climate change distress and denial in 1006 Dutch young adults (aged 16–35, 51.2% women, population-representative).

Methods

We measured four dimensions of climate change distress (eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, cognitive-emotional impairment, and functional impairment) and three dimensions of denial (of seriousness, personal impact, and impact elsewhere). Naturally occurring subgroups were identified using latent profile analysis. Profile differences in demographics, emotions, institutional trust, and coping strategies were examined using analysis of variance.

Findings

We identified six profiles: burdened worriers, unburdened worriers, climate change deniers, skeptic worriers, NIMBYs (Not-In-My-BackYard), and conflicted skeptics. Despite low average distress levels, about half of the sample reported moderate to high distress, alongside varying denial levels. High-distress profiles reported more hope and proactive coping, while denial-heavy profiles were linked to fatalism, lower institutional trust, and limited engagement. Profiles differed only minimally by gender, age, income, and living environment; education showed no differences.

Conclusions

By identifying six distinct patterns, this study moves beyond the activist–denier framing common in public discourse, showing that climate change distress and denial coexist in complex ways among Dutch youth. Future research should examine the stability of these profiles and include additional dimensions, such as ecological grief.
苦恼与否认:16-35岁的荷兰青年应对气候变化
气候变化引发了广泛的情绪和心理反应,从焦虑和内疚到否认。公众和媒体话语经常将气候变化的困扰和否认作为对立的阵营。我们通过在1006名荷兰年轻人(年龄在16-35岁之间,51.2%为女性,具有人口代表性)中识别气候变化困扰和否认的集群,从而超越了这种二分法。我们测量了气候变化困扰的四个维度(生态焦虑、生态内疚、认知情感障碍和功能障碍)和否认的三个维度(严重性、个人影响和其他影响)。使用潜在剖面分析确定自然发生的亚群。采用方差分析检验了人口统计学、情绪、机构信任和应对策略的概况差异。我们确定了六种类型:有负担的担忧者、无负担的担忧者、气候变化否认者、怀疑的担忧者、邻避者(不在我家后院)和矛盾的怀疑论者。尽管平均痛苦程度较低,但大约一半的样本报告了中度到高度的痛苦,以及不同程度的拒绝。高度痛苦的人表现出更多的希望和积极主动的应对,而高度拒绝的人则与宿命论、较低的机构信任和有限的参与有关。性别、年龄、收入和生活环境的差异很小;受教育程度没有差异。通过确定六种不同的模式,本研究超越了公共话语中常见的活动家-否认者框架,表明气候变化的困扰和否认在荷兰年轻人中以复杂的方式共存。未来的研究应该检查这些概况的稳定性,并包括额外的维度,如生态悲伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书