How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies, engagement, and well-being

How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies,

engagement, and well-being

Maria Ojala

Department of Education, Box 2136, Uppsala University, 750 02 Uppsala, Sweden

Youth & Society, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

article info

Article history:

Available online 8 March 2012

Keywords:

Climate change skepticism

Problem-focused coping

Meaning-focused coping

Optimism

Negative affect

Pro-environmental behavior

abstract

The aim of this questionnaire study was to explore how Swedish 12-year-olds (n ¼ 293) cope with

climate change, and how different coping strategies relate to environmental engagement and well-being.

Three coping strategies were identiﬁed: problem-focused coping, de-emphasizing the seriousness of

climate change, and meaning-focused coping. Problem-focused and meaning-focused coping had posi-

tive associations with measures of environmental engagement, while de-emphasizing the threat had

negative associations with engagement. Problem-focused coping was positively related to general

negative affect, which was explained by the tendency for highly problem-focused children to worry more

about climate change. In contrast, t he more meaning-focused coping the children used the less they

experienced negative affect, and the more they experienced life satisfaction, general positive affect,

purpose, and optimism. Finally, moderation analyses revealed that for children high on problem-focused

coping; meaning-focused coping, purpose, and optimism worked as buffers against negative affect. The

importance of positive emotions for constructive coping is discussed.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the most serious threats that humanity

is facing today. Since this problem is intertwined with the global

pattern of production and consumption there is a need to include

the public in efforts toward a sustainable society, and it is perhaps

especially important to reach the young generation since they are

the future leaders of society. Researchers argue that late childhood

and early adolescence are vital when it comes to developing an

interest in global environmental problems (Blanchet-Cohen, 2008;

Chawla & Flanders Cushing, 2007). Children in this age-group have

acquired the capacity for abstract thinking, which allows them to

make use of hypotheses and think beyond the concrete and direct

situation (Evenshaug & Hallen, 2001), and many have also started

to show an interest in the larger world and in global issues (Holden,

20 07).

Unfortunately, studies indicate that learning about global

problems can trigger profound feelings of anxiety, helplessness,

and hopelessness (Eckersley, 1999; Hicks & Bord, 2001; Holden,

20 07; Searle & Gow, 2010; Taber & Taylor, 2009; Tucci, Mitchell,

& Goddard, 2007). Psychologists have started to recognize climate

change as a stressor, and to argue that how people cope with this

threat could be important for both engagement and psychological

well-being (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006; Homburg, Stolberg, &

Wagner, 2007; Reser & Swim, 2011; Stokols, Misra, Runnerstrom,

& Hipp, 2009; Swim et al., 2009, 2011). This could be particularly

true for children, since they may ﬁnd it more difﬁcult than adults to

deal with the negative emotions that this threat arouses (Fritze,

Blashki, Burke, & Wiseman, 2008). There are, however, few

studies focusing on how children cope with climate change. The

main aims of this study were, therefore, to explore how a group of

Swedish 12-year-olds cope with global climate change and to

examine how different coping strategies relate to well-being (life

satisfaction, negative affect, positive affect) and environmental

engagement (environmental efﬁcacy, pro-environmental

behavior), as well as optimism concerning climate change and

a sense of purpose in life.

In the remainder of the introduction section, ﬁrst, the concept of

coping is deﬁned. Second, studies focusing on how young people

cope with societal risks in general are presented, before touching

upon the few studies focusing on climate change and coping.

Thereafter, the importance of meaning-focused coping will be

elaborated upon. Finally, the more speciﬁc aims and hypotheses of

the study are presented.

Department of Education, Box 2136, Uppsala University, 750 02 Uppsala, Sweden.

Tel.: þ46 0 18 4712422.

E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004

Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233

1.1. Coping

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), coping concerns

humans trying to handle different kinds of psychological stress and

threats. Coping is “cognitive and/or behavioral efforts to manage

speciﬁc external and/or internal demands” (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984, p. 141). This deﬁnition implies conscious efforts as opposed

to automatic or unconscious behavior, and focuses on efforts rather

than the actual outcome of the coping process. The word manage

indicates that, for instance, avoiding or accepting the stressful

condition, not only mastering the situation, are examples of coping.

The focus in the coping literature is usually on demands or

threats at a micro-level, for example, interpersonal problems.

However, coping could also be concerned with how one deals with

societal threats in order to avoid adverse states such as social

alienation and powerlessness (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). An indi-

vidual’s way of coping with societal threats could have an impact

not only on his/her psychological well-being, but also on his/her

social engagement (see Van Zomeren, Spears, & Leach, 2010).

The most well-known coping theory was developed by Lazarus

and Folkman (1984) and it distinguishes between two main ways of

coping; (1) emotion-focused strategies, where the goal is to get rid

of negative emotions evoked by a stressor, through for instance

avoidance, distancing, and denial-like strategies; and (2) problem-

focused strategies, where one concentrates on ways to solve the

problem, such as searching for information about what one can do.

When it comes to problems at a micro-level, a common ﬁnding is

that problem-focused coping has a positive inﬂuence on mental

well-being (Clarke, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), while

emotion-focused strategies are detrimental to well-being, at least

in the long run (for a review see Frydenberg, 2008, pp. 24e25).

However, research has shown that whether a coping strategy is

constructive or not is context dependent, and that even denial can

be beneﬁcial if used for a short time period, for instance, after the

sudden death of a loved one (for a review see Lazarus, 1999).

Although many of the main aspects of coping are similar in

different age-groups, there are some differences between how

adults and early adolescents cope with stress and threats. For

example, what is perceived as a stressor could differ between

different age-groups. In a review of studies about adolescents and

coping, Frydenberg (2008, pp. 2e3) identiﬁed three main concerns

for this age-group; achievements and future plans such as how one

performs in school, interpersonal relations with peers and parents,

and societal problems such as environmental risks. Furthermore,

children and adolescents do not have as much control over their

own behavior as adults; for instance, they are constrained by their

parents, and therefore there is a tendency to use problem-focused

coping less often than adults do (Ryan-Wenger, 1992). Thus, as

pointed out above, coping is dependant to a certain extent on

factors such as age and context, but also on the characteristics of the

stressor, which will be elaborated on below.

1.2. Coping with societal problems

Even if problem-focused strategies are often adaptive ways of

coping with stress at a micro-level, when stressors are uncontrol-

lable or very severe problem-focused coping could actually create

more distress (Clarke, 2006). Since societal problems are relatively

uncontrollable, some researchers have speculated that this could

cause

problem-focused coping in this area to be associated with

low well-being (Hallis & Slone, 1999). Empirical studies have,

however, shown mixed results. When it comes to how young

people cope with societal risks such as nuclear war and terrorism,

problem-focused coping is sometimes related to feelings of efﬁcacy,

engagement, and high well-being (Boehnke, Macpherson, Meador,

& Petri, 1989; Silver, Holman, McIntosh, Poulin, & Gil-Rivas, 20 02),

and sometimes to low well-being and stress (Hallis & Slone, 1999;

Heyman, Brennan, & Colarossi, 2010). These mixed results indicate

that there are factors that moderate the association between

problem-focused coping in relation to societal problems, on the one

hand, and well-being, on the other.

Concerning climate change and coping, there is some research

performed on adults. In a study by Homburg et al. (2007), problem-

solving strategies were positively related to both stress and

measures of pro-environmental behavior, while an emotion-

focused strategy in the form of denial of guilt was negatively

associated with stress and pro-environmental behavior. Further-

more, an experimental study by Van Zomeren et al. (2010) showed

that problem-focused coping in relation to the climate threat, in

this case equated with group efﬁcacy, led to environmental action

intentions.

Other studies, although they do not base their argu-

ments on the coping literature, have shown that often various

emotion-focused strategies, such as denial or externalization of

responsibility, are used to handle climate change psychologically

(Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, & Whitmarsh, 2007; Stoll-Kleeman,

O’Riordan, & Jaeger, 2001). Although not investigated directly,

these strategies are perceived as being detrimental for environ-

mental engagement.

If problem-focused coping is in some instances related to stress

and low psychological well-being e which could be especially true

for children, since they have less control over their behavior than

adults e and if emotion-focused strategies such as distancing and

denial may be negatively related to environmental engagement, are

there any other ways in which children can cope with the climate

threat? In the next section theories about the importance of

meaning-focused coping and positive emotions are presented.

1.3. Meaning-focused coping and positive emotions

There are some important asp ects missing in the studies

mentioned above. Research has shown that emotion-related

coping is not only about getting rid of negative feelings, through

for instance distancing or by de-emphasizing the seriousness of

the problem, but also concerns strategies to evoke positive feelings

that can work as buffers hindering negative emotions from turning

into low well-being (Folkma n, 2008). This way of regulating

emotions i s called meaning-focus ed coping. When using meaning-

focused st rategies, people draw on their beliefs, values, and exis-

tential goals to sustain well-being. This form of copi ng includes

strategies such as positive reappraisal, which is about acknowl-

edging the stre ssor but still being able to reverse one’s perspective.

Other meaning-focused strategies are ﬁnding beneﬁts in a difﬁcult

situation, revisions of goals , and spiritual beliefs (Folkman, 2008).

These strategies seem to activate positive emotions that can help

people face the difﬁcult situation and deal with the stressor

constructively. Meaning-focused coping is especially important

when the stressor cannot be removed and solved at once (or at all)

but still demands active involvement, suc h as when one has to care

for a terminally ill partner (Folkman, 2008; Folkman & Moskowitz,

2000).

Ojala (2007a,b) has argued that there are actually some simi-

larities here with global environmental problems. Even if a person

is very active, climate change cannot be solved at once, only in

a distant future. Furthermore, the person cannot solve the problem

alone; this can only happen at a collective and global level.

It is important to note that this study had a somewhat different conceptualization

of problem-focused coping from most studies, in that the focus was on group efﬁcacy

ratherthanindividual strategies to ﬁnd out what one can do about the problemoneself.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233226

However, at an aggregated level all people are contributing to

climate change through their lifestyles, and it is therefore impor-

tant to be active concerning this issue even though no result can be

seen directly. Thus, some form of meaning-focused coping, where

people do not deny the climate problem but are able to activate

positive emotions that can help them to bear the worry associated

with the awareness of this threat, could be beneﬁcial for both

engagement and well-being.

Meaning-focused coping could perhaps be one important factor

that moderates the relation between problem-focused coping and

different facets of psychological well-being. That is, it is possible

that, for instance, the ability to reverse one’s perspective, and see

not only threats but also opportunities, could buffer the excessive

worry that problem-focused coping may otherwise evoke. In

addition, optimism concerning climate change and a general sense

of purpose could perhaps also shield highly problem-focused

children from low well-being. Optimism, deﬁned as positive

outcome expectancies, has been found to be closely related to

positive emotions in stressful situations (see Carver & Scheier,

1999). Having identiﬁed a purpose/meaning in life has been

found to be important for well-being among young people,

including early adolescents (Bronk, Hill, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch,

20 09), and seems to buffer a high degree of environmental worry

from turning into low well-being (Ojala, 2005).

In order to explore more in detail how young people in

different age-groups cope with global environmental problems,

three qualitative studies were performed (Ojala, 2007a, 2007b,

20 08, submitted for publication). One of the strategies identiﬁed

was named positive reappraisal/cognitive restructuring since the

young people, after describing their worries about the environ-

mental problems, thought about them in a different way so as to

also activate hope. An example was to put the problems into

a historical context, where they thought that the awareness of the

problem had increased during recent years. Another source of

hope was trust in different societal actors, covering, for instance,

trust in scientists and technological solutions and trust in envi-

ronmental organizations. These strategies could be seen as

meaning-focused coping. Trust in one’s own ability to inﬂuence the

environmental problems in a positive direction, a strategy similar

to problem-focused coping, was also present. In addition, in one of

these studies (Ojala, submitted for publication) different kinds of

emotion-focused strategies to de-emphasize the climate threat

were identiﬁed, both more active strategies, for example thinking

that the problem is exaggerated, and more passive strategies, for

example claiming that one couldn’t be bothered to care about

climate change. Thus, the three main coping strategies identiﬁed

in the coping literature e problem-focused coping, emotion-

focused coping, and meaning-focused coping e also seem to be

important when it comes to coping with global environmental

problems.

1.4. Aims and hypotheses

In the present study, the coping strategies identiﬁed in the

qualitative studies mentioned above were measured quantitatively

in a group of 12-year-olds. The ﬁrst aim was to investigate whether

these could be seen as separate and valid dimensions in a scale

measuring coping with climate change among children in late

childhood/early adolescence. The focus was on problem-focused

coping, meaning-focused coping (positive reappraisal and trust in

different societal actors), and emotion-focused coping (de-

emphasizing

the seriousness of climate change, to not care about

climate change). The second aim was to explore the relations

between these sub-scales and different measures of psychological

well-being (life satisfaction, negative affect, and positive affect), on

the one hand, and environmental engagement, on the other

(environmental efﬁcacy and pro-environmental behavior). The

relations to optimism concerning climate change and a sense of

purpose were also investigated. Thereafter, a set of hypotheses

were formulated:

(1) A ﬁrst hypothesis was that problem-focused coping could be

negatively related to well-being, since searching for informa-

tion about what one can do concerning climate change

probably increases worry about this threat, at least among

children.

(2) A second hypothesis was that for children using a high degree

of problem-focused coping, meaning-focused coping ought to

function as a buffer against low well-being. That is, for children

using a high degree of meaning-focused coping the negative

relation between problem-focused coping and well-being

ought to be weaker than among children using meaning-

focused coping to a lower degree.

(3) A third hypothesis was that for children using a high degree of

problem-focused coping, optimism concerning climate

change, ought to function as a buffer against low well-being.

That is, for children feeling a high degree of optimism the

negative relation between problem-focused coping and well-

being ought to be weaker than among children feeling less

optimistic.

(4) A fourth hypothesis was that for children using a high degree

of problem-focused coping, a sense of purpose in life, ought to

function as a buffer against low well-being. That is, for chil-

dren having found a purpose in life the negative relation

between problem-focused coping and well-being ought to be

weaker than among children not having found a sense of

purpose in life.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure and participants

The study took place during autumn/winter 2009 among chil-

dren living in ﬁve municipalities in central Sweden. Active consent

was collected from both parents and children. Before the study

started, several measures, for instance pilot studies, were taken to

ensure that the children would understand the questions in the

questionnaire.

The study was performed during regular school

hours in the classroom and children were ensured anonymity.

Teachers were not present, and the questionnaire was administered

by trained neutral test leaders.

A total of 402 parents were contacted and asked if they would

allow their child to take part in the study. Of these, 85% gave thei r

active consent. In addition, 40 children were not present in the

classroom due to vacation or because they were sick, and four

children elected not to participate in the study. Thus, 299 children

answered the questionnaire, which gives a response rate of 74%.

Six of these children were excluded from the analysis because

they had not answered the questionnaire in a serious manner, or

had not understood the questions, and the subsequent data

A secondary-school teacher read through and gave comments on a ﬁrst draft of

the questionnaire. A smaller pilot group of children talked through the question-

naire with an assistant and made comments. A pilot class answered the ques-

tionnaire and made comments on, for instance, items that were hard to understand.

At least two trained assistants distributed the questionnaire in the classrooms, and

encouraged the pupils to ask questions if they had a hard time understanding

a question. In addition, those young people who had reading difﬁculties (as indi-

cated by the teacher) answered the questionnaire in a separate room where the

questions and answer alternatives were read out loud by one of the assistants.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233 227

analyses were based on 293 respondents. The sample consisted of

48% girls and 51% boys,

and the mean age was 12 years

(s.d. ¼ .28).

2.2. Measures

Environmental efﬁcacy was measured with four items. Two

captured individual self-efﬁcacy: “I think that I myself can

contribute to the improvement of the climate change situation”, and

“I know there are a number of things that I myself can do in order to

improve the climate change problem”. Two captured collective

efﬁcacy: “I believe that together we can do something about the

climate threat”, and “I am conﬁdent in that wetogether can solve the

climate change problem”. The children were asked to indicate how

well the items applied to them. Each item was followed by a 5-point

scale ranging from “does not apply at all” to “applies very well”.

Studies with adults have shown that self-efﬁcacy and collective

efﬁcacy (group efﬁcacy) in relation to environmental issues seem to

be two separate concepts (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006; Van Zomeren

et al., 2010). Therefore, a principal component analysis was per-

formed on the four items. However, they did not separate into two

factors. Instead, they fell out in one factor, and one scale with good

internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .86), was created.

Pro-environmental behavior was measured with twelve items

capturing both behavior in everyday life (e.g. how often one is:

“helping one’s parents to recycle”, “cycling to school instead of

being driven by car”) and communicating the need to do something

about the environment to other people (e.g. how often one is:

“asking one’s parents to buy organic food”, “trying to inﬂuence

one’s friends or/and peers to care more for the environment”). Each

item was assessed on a 5-point scale (almost never, seldom,

sometimes, often, almost always). Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

Life satisfaction was measured by a Swedish translation of a scale

aimed at assessing children’s thoughts about their own life

(Huebner

, 1991). The scale contained seven items (e.g. “Ihave

a good life”, “I wish I had a different kind of life”), each answered on

a 6-point scale from “does not apply at all” to “applies very well”.

The Cronbach’s alpha was .89.

General negative affect was measured with seven items about

anxious and depressive feelings felt during the last week, taken

from the Child Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). Two typical items

are: “I have worried about things I don’t usually worry about” and

“I have felt down and unhappy”. General positive affect was

measured with three items from Radloff’s scale. A typical item is:

“During the last week I have felt happy”. Each item was assessed

on a 4-point scale from “not at all” to “often”. A principal

component analysis with Varimax as the rotation method was

conducted on the items to investigate if they can be perceived as

two separate scales measuring general negative affect, on the one

hand, and general positive affect, on the other. A two-factor

structure was suggested by Kaiser’s Eigenvalue criterion. This

factor solution accounted for 58% of the total variance and the

factor loadings were also satisfactory (.50 or greater) (see

Table 1). The alpha reliability for negative affect was .83 and .76 for

the scale measuring positive affect.

Optimism concerning climate change was captured by three

items: “I feel hopeful that we will ﬁx the climate change problem in

the future”, “I think we will solve the climate problem in the

future”, and “I believe the future looks bright when it comes to

climate change”. The children were asked to indicate how well the

items applied to them on a 5-point scale ranging from “does not

apply at all” to “

applies very well”.

Cronbach’s alpha was .80.

Purpose in life was measured by four items taken from the

Revised Youth Purpose Survey (Bundick et al., 2006).

These items

measure whether one has found a purpose in life (1 item), how

important this purpose is for one’s self (2 items), and the depth of

one’s engagement; that is, if one is engaged in any organization that

supports one’s purpose (1 item). The children were asked to indi-

cate how well the items applied to them on a 6-point scale ranging

from “does not apply at all” to “applies very well”. Cronbach’s alpha

was .72.

Worry about climate change was measured by ﬁve items asking

how much the children worried about negative consequences

caused by climate change for themselves, their close ones, future

generations, people living in economically deprived countries, and

animals/nature. Each item was answered on a 6-point scale ranging

from “not at all” to “very much”. Cronbach’s alpha was .89.

3. Results

3.1. The coping scale

The children were given the following instruction: “When one

hears about societal problems such as climate change, one can feel

worried or upset. Below is a list and for every item we would like

you to indicate how well it applies to what you do or think when

you are reminded of climate change. Choose the alternative that

you feel best applies to you, and choose only one alternative per

item.” The response alternatives were: “not true at all”, “not very

true”, “fairly true”, “very true”, and “completely true”. The list

contained statements taken from qualitative studies with different

age-groups of young people (see Section 1.2) capturing different

facets of trust in other actors, positive reappraisal, problem-

focused coping, and strategies to de-emphasize the seriousness

of climate change.

After initial principal component analyses and reliability anal-

yses the items that are presented in Table 2 remained in the scale.

This is the result of a Principal component analysis with Varimax

rotation. Using Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion, the items fell out in

three separate sub-scales with acceptable Cronbach’s alphas; (1)

Meaning-focused coping (positive reappraisal including trust)

(

¼ .76), (2) De-emphasizing the seriousness of climate change

Table 1

The two-factor solution of the affect scale with rotated factor loadings.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Factor labels and sub-scales General negative

affect

General positive

affect

Felt worried .67

Not felt happy .63

Down and unhappy .71

Felt like I wanted to cry .79

Felt sad .79

Felt like others don’t like me .60

Felt scared .63

I have laughed .82

Felt happy .86

I have had a good time .73

Percent of variance explained 43 15

Note. Principal component analysis was used as the extraction method, with vari-

max rotation.

Four children did not indicate sex.

At all times, the arithmetic mean of the items in the scales for every person was

used to create aggregated measures.

The original scale was developed as part of “The Stanford Center on Adoles-

cence Youth Purpose Project”, partly ﬁnanced by “The John Templeton Foundation

and the Thrive Foundation for Youth.”

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233228

(

¼ .75), and (3) problem-focused strategies (

¼ .76). This factor

solution accounted for 52.5% of the total variance and the factor

loadings were satisfactory (.50 or greater) (see Table 2). It is

notable that positive reappraisal and trust fell into one factor, as did

the “active” and “passive” emotion-focused strategies.

3.2. How do the different coping strategies relate to engagement

and well-being?

Table 3 shows the results of Pearson’s correlation analyses

between the three coping strategies and measures of engagement

and well-being. Problem-focused coping and meaning-focused

coping were positively related to environmental efﬁcacy, pro-

environmental behavior, optimism concerning climate change,

and a sense of purpose. In addition, problem-focused coping had

a positive relation to general negative affect; that is, the more

problem-focused coping the children used, the more likely it was

that they also experienced more negative affect. However, there

were no signiﬁcant relations between problem-focused coping and

the other two measures of well-being, life satisfaction and positive

affect. Children who tended to use a high degree of meaning-

focused coping were, on the other hand, less likely to experience

negative affect and more likely to experience life satisfaction and

general positive affect. In addition, de-emphasizing the seriousness

of climate change was negatively related to environmental efﬁcacy

and pro-environmental behavior. However, the more the children

used this coping strategy, the less likely they were to feel a high

degree of depressive and anxious feelings (general negative affect).

3.3. Is problem-focused coping associated with general negative

affect because these strategies make children more worried about

climate change?

Since problem-focused coping was only signiﬁcantly related to

one of the well-being measures, negative affect, only the hypothesis

that problem-focused coping is positively related to general nega-

tive affect because these strategies make children more worried

about climate change, was investigated. The ﬁrst step was to

correlate problem-focused coping with worry about climate

change. A signiﬁcant positive relation was identi ﬁed, with r ¼ .48***

(n ¼ 292; ***p  .001). Next, a partial correlation analysis was

performed between problem-focused coping and general negative

affect, with worry as a control variable. When controlling for worry,

the relation between problem-focused coping and negative affect

was no longer signiﬁcant, with r ¼ .03 (n ¼ 287). Thus, the

hypothesis was conﬁrmed.

The next three sections cover the hypotheses that meaning-

focused coping, optimism concerning climate change, and a sense

of purpose can buffer highly problem-focused children from low

psychological well-being. Since problem-focused coping was only

signiﬁcantly related to one of the well-being measures, negative

affect, the focus is solely on this facet of well-being.

3.4. Does meaning-focused coping buffer against a high degree of

general negative affect for children high on problem-focused coping?

First, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to

assess the possible moderating effect of meaning-focused coping on

he relationship between problem-focused coping and negative

affect.

In a ﬁrst step, problem-focused coping was found to be

a unique signiﬁcant positive predictor,

¼ .25, p  .001, of negative

affect while meaning-focused coping was a signiﬁcant negative

predictor ,

¼.20, p  .001. A signiﬁcant interaction term between

these two variables was also present,

¼19, p  .001; that is, in the

second step in the model, the added variance explained by the

interaction term was signiﬁcant,

¼ .04, p  .001.

The main effects

also remained signiﬁcantin the second step;problem-focused coping,

¼ .27, p  .001, and meaning-focused coping,

¼.23, p  .00 1.

Second, the interaction effect was plotted in order to clarify its

nature. As shown in Fig. 1, the positive relation between problem-

Table 2

The three factor solution of the coping scale with rotated factor loadings.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Meaning-focused coping De-emphasizing/don’t care Problem-focused coping

More and more people have started

to take climate change seriously

.59 I think that the problem is exaggerated .69 I think about what I myself can do .68

I have faith in humanity; we can

ﬁx all problems

.77 I don’t care since I don’t know much

about climate change

.62 I search for information about what

I as a child can do

.84

I trust scientists to come up with

a solution in the future

.69 Climate change is something positive

because the summers will get warmer

.70 I talk with my family and friends

about what one can do to help

.80

I have faith in people engaged in

environmental organizations

.70 I can’t be bothered to care about

climate change

.66

I trust the politicians .58 Nothing serious will happen during

my lifetime

.51

Even though it is a big problem,

one has to have hope

.61 Climate change does not concern

those of us living in Sweden

.62

Percent of variance

explained

25 19 9

Note. Principal component analysis was used as the extraction method, with varimax rotation.

Table 3

Pearson correlations between the three coping strategies and measures of envi-

ronmental engagement and well-being.

Meaning-focused

coping

De-emphasizing/

don’t care

Problem-

focused coping

Optimism concerning

climate change

.61*** (n ¼ 287) .04 (n ¼ 282) .18** (n ¼ 290)

Environmental

efﬁcacy

.43*** (n ¼ 287) .39*** (n ¼ 282) .51*** (n ¼ 290)

Pro-environmental

behavior

.29*** (n ¼ 288) .38*** (n ¼ 283) .70*** (n ¼ 289)

General negative

affect

.12*(n ¼ 288) .16** (n ¼ 283) .19*** (n ¼ 291)

General positive

affect

.13* (n ¼ 288) .06 (n ¼ 283) .03 (n ¼ 291)

Life satisfaction .22*** (n ¼ 288) .10 (n ¼ 283) .01(n ¼ 291)

Purpose in life .13* (n ¼ 286) .05 (n ¼ 281) .31*** (n ¼ 289)

Note. *p  .05;

**p  .01; ***p  .001.

In all the regression analyses, the independent variables were transformed into

z-scores to minimize problems of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).

The ﬁnal model was signiﬁcant, F (3, 284) ¼ 11.27; p  .001; R

¼ .11.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233 229

focused coping and negative affect was stronger for low meaning-

focused coping than for high levels.

In addition, simple slope

analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) showed that problem-focused coping

signiﬁcantly predicted negative affect for children low on meaning-

focused coping,

¼ .44, p  .001, but not for children high on

meaning-focused coping,

¼ .10, p ¼ .175. Thus, using meaning-

focused coping to deal with the climate threat seems to shield

children who use a lot of problem-focused coping from a high

degree of general negative affect.

3.5. Does optimism concerning climate change buffer against a high

degree of general negative affect for children high on problem-

focused coping?

The results of a hierarchical regression analysis showed that

problem-focused coping was a unique signiﬁcant positive predictor

of negative affect,

¼ .24, p  .001, while optimism was a signiﬁ-

cant negative predictor,

¼.25, p  .001. Thereafter, the inter-

action term between these two variables were entered in a second

step and was also found to be a signiﬁcant predictor,

¼.23,

p  .001, that is, it contributed signiﬁcantly to the explained vari-

ance,

¼ .05, p  .001.

In addition, the main effects remained

signiﬁcant; problem-focused coping,

¼ .24, p  .001, and opti-

mism,

¼.30, p  .001.

A plot of the interaction term is shown in Fig. 2. The positive

relation between problem-focused coping and negative affect was

much stronger for low optimism than for high optimism, where the

relation was virtually null. A simple slope analysis (Aiken & West,

1991) showed that problem-focused coping signiﬁcantly pre-

dicted negative affect for children low on optimism concerning

climate change,

¼ .46, p  .001, but not for children high on

optimism,

¼ .02, p ¼ .835. Hence, optimism seems to buffer

highly problem-focused children from a high degree of negative

affect.

3.6. Does a sense of purpose buffer against a high degree of general

negative affect for children high on problem-focused coping?

Again a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. In the

ﬁrst step, problem-focused coping was a unique signiﬁcant positive

predictor of negative affect,

¼ .20, p  .001, while purpose had no

signiﬁcant impact on negative affect,

¼.02, p ¼ .80. However, in

a second step there was a signiﬁcant interaction effect between

purpose and problem-focused coping,

¼.12, p  .05;

¼ .01,

p  .05.

Furthermore, the main effect for problem-focused coping

remained signiﬁcant in the second step,

¼ .22, p  .001.

In order to interpret this result, the interaction was plotted (see

Fig. 3), showing a slightly more complicated picture. Among chil-

dren who used a lot of problem-focused coping, those who expe-

rienced a high degree of purpose felt less negative affect than those

who experienced a low degree of purpose, indicating that purpose

works as a buffer against negative affect for these children.

However, among children who scored low on problem-focused

coping, a high degree of purpose was actually associated with

a higher degree of negative affect than was a low degree of purpose.

In addition, a simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) showed

that problem-focused coping signiﬁcantly predicted negative affect

for children low on purpose,

¼ .33, p  .001, but for children high

on purpose the relation was weaker and not signiﬁcant,

¼ .11 ,

p ¼ .139. Hence, purpose seems to buffer highly problem-focused

children from a high degree of negative affect.

4. Discussion

Researchers have started to argue that the way people cope

psychologically with climate change is important both for mental

well-being and for environmental engagement, and that this could

be particularly true in younger age-groups. However, few empirical

Fig. 2. The moderating role of optimism concerning climate change on the relation

between problem-focused coping and negative affect. Low values ¼1 SD and high

values ¼þ1 SD.

Fig. 1. The moderating role of meaning-focused coping on the relation between

problem-focused coping and negative affect. Low values ¼1 SD and high values ¼þ1

SD.

Fig. 3. The moderating role of a sense of purpose on the relation between problem-

focused coping and negative affect. Low values ¼1 SD and high values ¼þ1 SD.

Throughout the article the value for high levels ¼þ1 SD and the value for low

levels ¼1 SD.

The ﬁnal model was signiﬁcant, F (3, 284) ¼ 16.58; p  .001; R

¼ .15.

The ﬁnal model was signiﬁcant, F (3, 283) ¼ 5.02; p  .01; R

¼ .05.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233230

studies have been performed on how young people cope with this

threat. The present study was aimed at ﬁlling this gap in the liter-

ature. Three reliable coping strategies were identiﬁed; meaning-

focused coping (positive reappraisal/trust), de-emphasizing the

seriousness of climate change, and problem-focused coping. How

these coping strategies relate to measures of psychological well-

being and environmental engagement was explored.

4.1. Problem-focused coping and emotions-focused coping

In the study it was shown that to use a high degree of problem-

focused coping (e.g. searching for information about what one as

a child can do about climate change) seems to have both positive

and negative consequences. If the goal is to encourage pro-

environmental behavior and environmental efﬁcacy, then it

seems that a useful strategy would be to help children cope with

climate change through problem-focused coping. This result is

supported by a study conducted on adults (Homburg et al., 2007).

However, in the present study, children who used problem-focused

coping to a large extent also had a tendency to feel a high degree of

general negative affect; that is, to experience anxious and depres-

sive feelings in their everyday life. This is in accordance with

researchers who argue that problem-focused coping concerning

stressors that are relatively uncontrollable, such as societal prob-

lems, could be associated with lower mental well-being (Clarke,

20 06; Heyman et al., 2010).

Even though the present study’s design precludes any causal

analyses, the result of the partial correlation analysis could be

interpreted to mean that the use of problem-focused coping may

trigger worry about climate change, which in turn makes children

inclined to feel more negative affect in general. Children have even

less control than adults over their own behavior concerning climate

change; this could be why problem-focused strategies make them

more worried, rather than helping them to experience a higher

degree of control over the situation.

An alternative explanation is that children who experience

a high degree of negative affect in general also experience more

negative feelings when it comes to climate change, and that this

worry motivates them to search for information about what they

can do about the problem; that is, to use more problem-focused

coping. This explanation is supported by studies showing that

worry about nuclear war to a certain extent is a subtype of a general

tendency to experience a high degree of negative affect (Hamilton,

Keilin, Knox, & Naginey, 1989; Hollin, 1991). Further support comes

from research showing that worry often focuses people’s attention

on the stressor followed by an intense search for possible solutions

(for a review see Marcus, 2002).

That children who de-emphasize the seriousness of climate

change as a way to cope, experience a lower degree of environ-

mental efﬁcacy and also do not behave as pro-environmentally as

children who use these strategies to a lower degree is perhaps not

a surprising result. However, this is still a novel empirical ﬁnding. A

somewhat similar relation was identiﬁed in a study of how

adolescents cope with the nuclear threat ( Thearle & Weinreich-

Haste, 1986). One can speculate whether it is these strategies to

psychologically handle climate change that lead to a lower degree

of felt efﬁcacy, or if it is that children who believe that they and

other laypeople cannot do anything concerning this issue e who

perhaps even feel helpless in general concerning societal issues e

develop these coping strategies as a response to these feelings of

powerlessness. It is also interesting to note that this coping strategy

has a negative relation to general negative affect, which indicates

that it indeed is a way to regulate emotions, and not simply a “cold”

cognitive view of climate change.

4.2. Meaning-focused coping, optimism, and purpose

Perhaps the most interesting results of this study are those

concerning the use of meaning-focused coping, including strategies

such

as positive reappraisal and trust. In previous studies about

coping with societal threats, the focus has mostly been on problem-

focused coping, on the one hand, and emotion-focused strategies,

on the other. However, studies about coping at a micro-level show

that meaning-focused coping is aimed more at activating positive

emotions than at getting rid of negative emotions (Folkman, 2008).

In accordance with this, meaning-focused coping was the only

strategy that had a signiﬁcant relation, positive in this case, to

general positive affect. Children using this coping strategy also

experienced more optimism concerning climate change, and in this

case the correlation was strong. Furthermore, the more meaning-

focused coping the children used, the more they experienced life

satisfaction, and the more they were inclined to behave pro-

environmentally and to feel a high degree of environmental efﬁ-

cacy. Again, the data cannot show the direction of causality;

however, an experimental study has shown that having trust in

societal actors concerning climate change (group efﬁcacy) leads to

environmental action intentions (Van Zomeren et al., 2010). In

addition, it could be an underlying optimistic personality or

beneﬁcial social circumstances that explain the use of this coping

strategy (as well as well-being and environmental engagement).

More importantly, the meaning-focused strategies, trust and

positive reappraisal, as well as optimism concerning climate

change worked as buffers against a high degree of general negative

affect among highly problem-focused children. These results are in

accordance with studies about stressors at a micro-level that are

hard to control but still demand that one is actively involved,

showing the importance of meaning-focused coping and positive

emotions for mental well-being (Folkman, 2008; Folkman &

Moskowitz, 2000; Ojala, 2005).

Finally, a sense of purpose, which is a more identity-related

concept, also seems to buffer highly problem-focused children

from negative affect. This result is in accordance with a study

showing that adolescents who worried a lot about global environ-

mental problems were shielded from low subjective well-being by

having found a sense of meaning (Ojala, 2005). However, a more

surprising result is that for children who used problem-focused

coping to a low degree, scoring high on the measure of purpose

was actually related to stronger negative affect. This contradicts the

notion that purpose in general has a positive relation to well-being

(see for instance Bronk et al., 2009).

This result is perhaps

spurious; however, embedded in the purpose measure are an

interest in the larger world and also an engagement in organizations

supporting one’s purposes in life. For these children, it is perhaps

normal to be problem-focused, that is, to search for information

about what one can do when it comes to societal problems, and

those who are not are youths that are more depressed or anxious.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

Despite the theoretically meaningful ﬁndings, some limitations

of the current study should be mentioned. Due to the lack of scales

measuring environmental engagement among children, many of

the scales in this study were created by the author. Even though in

many cases they were developed from qualitative pilot studies with

young people, and the face validity therefore ought to be high, and

although the internal consistencies of the scales were satisfactory,

Purpose in life had no signiﬁcant direct relation to general negative affect r ¼ .

05 (n ¼ 287).

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233 231

future studies are needed to further test the validity of the scales.

For instance, how they relate to other similar measures ought to be

investigated. This is particularly important when it comes to the

coping scale. When it comes to, for example, the measures of

optimism and self-efﬁcacy, the scales used in the analyses reported

in this article, only included questions worded for answers in one

direction. Reversed questions were included in the questionnaire,

but when factor analyses were performed on all items they did not

fall into one consistent scale. This indicates that, for example,

optimism and pessimism concerning climate change are not two

endpoints on a scale, but rather two separate constructs, which is in

accordance with theories about the independence of positive and

negative affect (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999). Nevertheless,

in order to avoid response bias, future studies should use scales

which include other, and better, reversed items.

Still, the obvious strength of this study is that it is the ﬁrst that

focuses on the importance of meaning-focused coping and positive

emotions for coping with climate change among children; and as

such, the study is a valuable theoretical contribution to both

environmental psychology and the coping literature. The study also

has practical implications, both for parents searching for advice on

how to talk with their children about climate change, and not least,

for teachers involved in education for sustainable development.

4.4. Practical implications

This study reveals a dilemma: in this age-group, problem-

focused coping may not be enough to avoid excessive negative

affect from environmental worry, but it is still important to

encourage problem-focused strategies because of their positive

relations to environmental engagement. However, the study also

identiﬁes a solution to this dilemma. Teachers, for example, while

focusing on problem-focused strategies, could also emphasize

positive thinking, trust in different societal actors, and optimism

concerning climate change, since these factors seem to shield

children who use problem-focused coping from a high degree of

negative affect but also have positive relations to pro-

environmental behavior and environmental efﬁcacy.

This does not mean that teachers should encourage naïve and

uncritical trust and unrealistic optimism. However, research has

shown that it is vital to avoid extreme cynicism and black-and-

white thinking among pupils concerning, for example, politicians

and scientists, since this often leads to feelings of helplessness (see

Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & Corngold, 2007, 153). It is important to

help young people develop a nuanced appreciation of the

complexity and dilemmas that different societal actors face. One

possible strategy could be to organize meetings between young

people and societal actors who have worked with the climate issue

for a long time and who have faced and overcome challenges (see

Colby et al., 2007, 154).

Concerning optimism, studies have shown that young people

are to a large extent trapped in a discourse of threat and gloom

when it comes to global problems (Eckersley, 1999; Reid, Payne, &

Cutter-Mackenzie, 2010). Being caught up in the popular media’s

apocalyptic images is hardly beneﬁcial for critical thinking about

these issues. Here, teachers could encourage young people to

search for alternative stories about the future, not only in scientiﬁ c

textbooks, but also in art and literature; these stories could be used

as a basis for critical and creative discussions (see Reid et al., 2010).

Trust and optimism need not be antithetical to critical thinking, but

rather can help children to take in facts about climate change and

discuss ethical issues in a constructive way (for related arguments

see Folkman, 2008). In addition, when a person takes global envi-

ronmental problems seriously and when hope is based on positive

reappraisal and trust, this emotional cognitive concept has been

found to relate positively to environmental engagement (Ojala,

2008, 2011). Thus, optimism/hope is not only a solace, but also

seems to be a motivational force.

Teachers should also be aware of denial-like patterns of

thinking, where the young de-emphasize the seriousness of climate

change. It is important to encourage young people to put these

thoughts into words, so that they can be discussed critically in the

classroom (see Ojala, 2011). Otherwise, it will most probably be

dif

ﬁcult

to reach out to the young people who hold them with facts

and ethical arguments.

4.5. Future studies

The study is to a large extent explorative in nature, and as such it

evokes more questions than it answers. Future studies should for

instance investigate whether the results identiﬁed are also present

in other age-groups, or if they are age-speciﬁc to 12-year-olds.

Furthermore, in order to know more about which comes ﬁrst,

coping strategies or well-being and engagement, experimental and

longitudinal studies are needed.

In addition, research about coping has started to acknowledge

that coping is not something that takes place in isolation, but also

concerns how people interact and talk with others about threats

and stress (Folkman, 2009). Thus, coping with climate change in

a social context, for instance, how young people communicate with

teachers, parents, and friends about emotions in relation to climate

change, should be investigated in future studies.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by research grants from the

Swedish Research Council Formas and the Swedish Energy Agency.

During the collection of the data and the writing of the article Maria

Ojala was a post-doctoral researcher in psychology at Örebro

University, afﬁliated with two research centers Youth & Society and

Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Many thanks to Professor

Maria Tillfors for constructive comments on an earlier version of

this paper.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-

actions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2008). Taking a stance: Child agency across the dimension of

early adolescents’ environmental involvement. Environmental Education

Research, 14(3), 257e272.

Boehnke, K., Macpherson, M. J., Meador, M., & Petri, H. (1989). How West German

adolescents experience the nuclear threat. Political Psychology, 10,419e443.

Bronk, K. C., Hill, P., Lapsley, D., Talib, N., & Finch, H. (2009). Purpose, hope, and life-

satisfaction in three age groups. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4 (6), 500e510.

Bundick, M., Andrews, M., Jones, A., Mariano, J. M., Bronk, K. C., & Damon, W. (2006).

Revised youth purpose survey. Stanford, CA: Unpublished instrument, Stanford

Center on Adolescence.

Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel

and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 839e855.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The

psychology of what works (pp. 182e204) . New York: Oxford University Press.

Chawla, L., & Flanders Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental

behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 4,437e452.

Clarke, A. T. (2006). Coping with interpersonal stress and psychosocial health

among children and adolescents: A meta analysis. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 35(1), 11e24.

Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eckersley, R. (1999). Dreams and expectations: Young people’s expected and

preferred futures and their signiﬁcance for education. Futures, 31,73e90.

Evenshaug, O., & Hallen, D. (2001). Barn- och ungdomspsykologi.[Child, and youth

psychology]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety,

Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 21(1), 3e14.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233232

Folkman, S. (2009). Commentary on the special section “Theory-based approaches

to stress and coping”: Questions, answers, issues, and next steps in stress and

coping research. European Psychologist, 14,72e77 .

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping.

American Psychologist, 55(6), 647e654.

Fritze, J. G., Blashki, G. A., Burke, S., & Wiseman, J. (2008). Hope, despair and

transformation: Climate change and the promotion of metal health and well-

being. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 7(2), 2e13.

Frydenberg, E. (2008). Adolescent coping. Advances in theory, research, and practice.

New York: Routledge.

Hallis, D., & Slone, M. (1999). Coping strategies and locus of control as mediating

variables in the relation between exposure to political life events and psycho-

logical adjustment in Israeli children. International Journal of Stress Manage-

ment, 6,105e123.

Hamilton, S. B., Keilin, W. G., Knox, T. A., & Naginey, J. L. (1989). When thoughts turn

toward nuclear war: Stress responses, coping strategies, and the importance of

trait anxiety in moderating effects on “Mental health”. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 19(2), 111e139.

Heyman, J. C., Brennan, M., & Colarossi, L. (2010). Event-exposure stress, coping, and

psychological distress among New York students at six months after 9/11.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23(2), 153e163.

Hicks, D., & Bord, A. (2001). Learning about global issues: Why most educators only

make things worse. Environmental Education Research, 7(4), 413e425.

Holden, C. (2007). Young people’s concerns. In D. Hicks, & C. Holden (Eds.), Teaching

the global dimension: Key principles and effective practice (pp. 31e42). New York:

Routledge.

Hollin, C. R. (1991). Concern about the threat of nuclear war: Just another worry?

Anxiety Research, 4(1), 51e60.

Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with

a cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26,1e14.

Homburg, A., Stolberg, A., & Wagner, U. (2007). Coping with global environmental

problems development and ﬁrst validation of scales. Environment and Behavior,

39, 754e778.

Huebner, E. S. (1991). Further validation of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale: The

independence of satisfaction and affect ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 9, 363e368.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotions: A new synthesis. New York: Springer

Publishing Company.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stres

s, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer

Publishing Company.

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers to engaging with

climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global

Environmental Change, 17,445e459.

Marcus, G. E. (2002). The sentimental citizen. Emotion in democratic politics.

University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Ojala, M. (2005). Adolescents’ worries about environmental risks: Subjective well-

being, values, and existential dimensions. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(3), 331e347.

Ojala, M. (2007a). Confronting macrosocial worries. Worry about environmental

problems and proactive coping among a group of young volunteers. Futures,

39(6), 729e745.

Ojala, M. (2007b). Hope and worry: Exploring young people’s values, emotions, and

behavior regarding global environmental problems. Örebro Studies in Psychology

11. Örebro University. Doctoral dissertation.

Ojala, M. (2008). Recycling and ambivalence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses

of household recycling among young adults. Environment and Behavior, 40(6),

777e797.

Ojala, M. (2011). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environ-

mental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research.

doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.637157, On line ﬁrst.

Ojala, M. Regulating worry, promoting hope: How children, adolescents, and young

adults cope with climate change, submitted for publication.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale. A self-report depression scale of research in

the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385e401.

Reid, A., Payne, P. G., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2010). Openings for researching

environment and place in children’s literature: ecologies, potentials, realities

and challenges. Environmental Education Research, 16, 429e461.

Reser, J. P., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts

of climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 277e289.

Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1992). A taxonomy of children’s coping strategies. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2), 259e263.

Searle, K., & Gow, K. (2010). Do concern about climate change lead to distress?

International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(4),

362e378.

Silver, R. C., Holman, E. A., McIntosh, D. N., Poulin, M., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2002).

Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(10), 1235e1244.

Stokols, D., Misra, S., Runnerstrom, M. G., & Hipp, A. J. (2009). Psychology in an age

of ecological crisis. From personal angst to collective action. American

Psychologist, 6 4(3), 181

93.

Stoll-Kleeman, S., O’Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psychology of denial

concerning climate change mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus

groups. Global Environmental Change, 11,107e117.

Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., Doherty, T. J., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Reser, J. P., et al. (2009).

Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon

and set of challenges. Report from the American Psychological Association (APA).

Swim, J. K., Stern, P. C., Doherty, T. J., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Weber, E. U., et al. (2011).

Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate

change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241e250.

Taber, F., & Taylor, N. (2009). Climate of concern e A search for effective strategies

for teaching children about global warming. International Journal of Environ-

mental & Science Education, 4(2), 97e116.

Thearle, L., & Weinreich-Haste, H. (1986). Ways of coping; adolescents’ respo nse

to nuclear threat. Internatio nal Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15,

126e142.

Tucci, J., Mitchell, J., & Goddard, C. (2007). Children’s fears, hopes and heroes. Modern

childhood in Australia. Monash University: National Research Centre for the

Prevention of Child Abuse.

Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2010). Experimental evidence for a dual

pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crises. Journal of Environ-

mental Psychology, 30(4), 339e346.

M. Ojala / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 225e233 233