At a time like the present, when the climate crisis is becoming more severe despite the scientific consensus on the urgency of transforming the human conducts that cause it, it is essential to understand what factors encourage or hinder the adopting of sustainable behaviours. Although the data on environmental deterioration are clear, they do not always generate a committed response on the part of citizens. The Psychology of climate change study provides valuable keys for understanding this gap. In-depth analysis of the emotions and perceptions that affect human behaviour can enable the development of more effective strategies for change.
The climate crisis is affecting emotional well-being and accentuating social inequalities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022), millions of people are already suffering psychological impacts associated with the climate crisis, such as ecological anxiety, stress, or grief, especially among more vulnerable groups, such as rural communities, children, or those who live in areas exposed to environmental disasters. Factors such as climate eco-anxiety, hope, or a sense of climate agency bear an influence on sustainable involvement (Weber & Stern, 2022). 

The emotional impact is especially evident among young people, who frequently express intense emotions such as anger or frustration with regard to political inaction (Hickman et al., 2021). However, the differences in emotional and behavioural response are not only explained by age: social and economic conditions also play a key role, influencing both exposure to the risk and capacity to act (European Environment Agency, 2023). Lastly, although most of the population support environmental policies, inequalities in resources and subjective well-being are among the factors that limit the real possibilities of response (United Nations Development Programme, 2021). 

This article presents the results of a survey conducted among a representative sample of the Spanish population (n = 1,912), stratified by age, sex, and place of residence with the aim of examining the principal relationships between the psychological and sociodemographic variables and pro-environmental behaviour.
 

In Spain, the majority of the population perceives climate change as a serious problem (scoring an average of 4.05 out of 5). However, this awareness is not always translated into action. Pro-environmental behaviour and concern for the environment account for more moderate levels (with 3.5 and 3.4 on average, respectively). In this sense, the perception of climate change gravity explains only 13.3% of pro-environmental behaviour, which indicates that perceiving the climate crisis is more important, but not sufficient to lead to action. Other variables exist that clearly bear influence on the pro-environmental conduct. The sense of personal efficacy to mitigate the crisis –or climate agency— is the factor that most encourages sustainable conduct; alone it explains 35.9% of that conduct. Also notable are eco-concern (17.7 %), anger (16.7 %), guilt (10.1 %) and hope (1.5%), which is the order of the role of the emotions as a driving force. As for climate fatigue —the perception of an information overload on the population, that feeds an exaggerated climate alarm—, the people who score highest for this emotion tend to show significantly lower levels of pro-environmental behaviour. This pattern suggests that fatigue could act to curb environmental commitment, manifested in pro-environmental conduct. 

As for sociodemographic factors, those that influence most are political ideology (5.7%) and educational level (1.9%). These data reinforce the idea that both psychological and sociodemographic factors are important when trying to explain why some people take action against the climate crisis and others do not.


 

The emotions play a key role in the citizens’ response regarding environmental problems. Some 44 % of the Spanish population frequently feels climate anger due to the lack of advances in the mitigation of the climate crisis. At the opposite extreme, 33% show climate fatigue, considering that the problem is oversized. Among the emotions considered (from eco-anxiety to anger), climate anger is the one most associated with pro-environmental conduct. Climate anger is a reactive emotion that emerges before a perception of injustice, inaction, or negligence with regard to the climate crisis. It is usually aimed at governments, companies or institutions that do not act with the necessary urgency, and may mobilise people to demand changes or adopt pro-environmental conducts. Climate hope, for its part, although less intense, maintains a stable and predictive effect: people who believe that their actions can mark the difference, tend to act in a way that is more moderate but stable in time. In contrast, for emotions such as defencelessness, sadness or loneliness, no significant relations have been observed with pro-environmental conduct. Understanding this emotional map is key for designing campaigns that connect with people without generating emotional blockage.


 

Gender does not determine pro-environmental conduct to any large extent. However, it does influence the emotional profile that accompanies it. Women show higher levels of anger (on average 4 out of 5), sadness (3.9), guilt (2.9) and pro-environmental conduct (3.2) in comparison with men. Furthermore, among women, hope and guilt are emotions that more strongly predict sustainable behaviour. In the case of men, the emotion most associated with sustainable action is climate anger, although this emotion manifests less than in women. Climate fatigue shows a more notable negative effect among men, weakening their involvement in sustainability. In both genders, emotions such as defencelessness, loneliness, or sadness do not appear to have a clear relationship with pro-environmental conduct. Overall, the data suggest that women tend to mobilise more from constructive emotions, whereas in men, reactive responses such as anger predominate, which may encourage, but also block action if they are not channelled adequately.

Overall, the data suggest that women tend to mobilise more from constructive emotions, whereas in men, reactive responses such as anger predominate, which may encourage, but also block action if they are not channelled adequately.

Age not only marks the passage of time: it also transforms the way in which we relate emotionally with the planet and what we do with respect to it. It modulates climate emotions and sustainable conduct with differentiated patterns between young people (18–35 years), adults (36–60 years) and older people (61 year and upwards). In general, as age increases, higher levels of sustainable conduct are observed, with a higher emotional intensity – especially in anger and sadness) – and a higher sensation of agency.

First of all, young people stand out because they experience greater climate guilt (2.95 on a scale 0-5), more fatigue (3.04) and more defencelessness (3.54) than the rest. They are also the ones who feel less capable of acting (3.58) and the ones who show slightly lower hope (2.97). Although their level of anger is high (3.83), it is the lowest of the three groups. In second place, adults usually occupy intermediate positions in the majority of variables, without significant differences. Finally, older adults report the highest level of anger (4.19), the greatest sense of agency (3.88) and the highest hope (3.17). They are also the ones who feel the least fatigue (2.88). On comparing the three groups, significant differences are not observed in variables such as eco-anxiety (low in all three groups) or eco-concern (moderately high in all three groups). Overall, the generational differences reveal emotional nuances, but also a common pattern: climate change arouses concern at all ages.


 

Socio-economic conditions not only affect what a person can do for the environment, but also how they live and feel the ecological crisis. In this study, 47% of the population affirm that they have few socioeconomic difficulties to adopt generally pro-environmental conduct, while 22% indicate that their living conditions make this very difficult. Although both groups show similar levels of sustainable conduct (3.24), there are clear differences in their emotional profiles. The people with fewer difficulties feel that they have more climate agency (3.94), perceive climate change gravity more clearly (4.28) and experience emotions such as climate anger intensely (4.21). For their part, people who face greater difficulties show higher levels of anxiety (2.70), but also of hope with regard to climate change (3.26). In this group, both anxiety and hope are the emotions that push them towards greater pro-environmental behaviour. These results indicate that commitment to sustainability does not only depend on the way in which people live their climate reality emotionally, but also on their perception of their living conditions.


 

The analysis of human behaviour underlying the climate crisis is fundamental for advancing in its mitigation. Understanding what practices people adopt, what they believe that they are doing, how they perceive the climate threat, how they experience it emotionally and how they develop it cognitively, enables key knowledge to be generated for the design of public policies and more effective intervention strategies.

In this study, results were obtained from the use of validated, and therefore reliable psychological instruments on a representative sample of the Spanish population with regard to gender, age and place of residence. The data indicate that high perception and concern exists with regard to the gravity of climate change, but that these psychological factors do not always lead to the adopting of pro-environmental behaviour. In relation with socioeconomic conditions, people who perceive greater difficulties in life usually show lower levels of sustainable action. This situation is associated not only with a lower availability of resources, but also with a lesser emotional connection and a reduced sense of capacity to act. Finally, it has been observed how sustainable conduct also varies according to age, gender, education level and ideology: specifically, women, older people, and those who identify with progressive positions tend to become more involved. These findings suggest that public policies and awareness-raising campaigns  should take into account the emotional, sociodemographic

This study is based on the perceptions of the people surveyed; therefore, the values reflected are not necessarily objective. The sample is representative by age, gender and place of residence, but not by education level, political ideology, or socioeconomic level. Furthermore, it does not include minors nor people without digital access, therefore its conclusions cannot be extrapolated to the whole population.

European Environment Agency (2023): Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: Social vulnerability to climate change in Europe. 

Hickman, C., E. Marks, P. Pihkala, S. Clayton, R. E. Lewandowski, E. E. Mayall, B. Wray, C. Mellor y L. Van Susteren (2021): «Young people’s voices on climate anxiety, government betrayal and moral injury: A global phenomenon». The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022): «Chapter 7: Health, wellbeing, and the changing structure of communities». En H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

United Nations Development Programme (2021): The People’s Climate Vote. 

Weber, E. U. y P. C. Stern (2022): Psychology of climate change: Impacts, adaptations, and collective action. Annual Review of Psychology, 73.