Knowledge From the Afrikan World, For the World

PMC Articles

Eco-Anxiety in Higher Education Professionals: Psychological Impacts, Institutional Trust, and Policy Implications

PMCID: PMC12839761

PMID:

Abstract

Eco-anxiety—emotional distress arising from awareness of environmental collapse—has become a critical dimension of social sustainability, linking mental well-being, professional functioning, institutional trust, and climate governance. This study investigates how higher education professionals (HEPs) experience and interpret eco-anxiety within their professional contexts, situating it as a lens on institutional legitimacy from the perspective of those who produce, teach, and steward climate knowledge. A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of 556 HEPs was conducted across a month in 2023, combining an adapted climate anxiety scale with open-ended narratives. Quantitative analyses identified perceived governmental inadequacy as the strongest correlate of climate worry (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), accounting for 26% of the variance, whereas institutional inadequacy had a weaker effect. Qualitative findings revealed pervasive emotions of moral injury, solastalgia, and exhaustion when sustainability rhetoric outpaced genuine action, with many respondents describing governmental and institutional “betrayal.” Integrating Cognitive Appraisal Theory with concepts of moral legitimacy, the study conceptualises eco-anxiety as a relational and ethically grounded emotion reflecting the perceived misalignment between knowledge and governance. Addressing it requires transparent climate leadership, participatory governance, and organisational care infrastructures to sustain motivation and trust within universities. Eco-anxiety thus may function not only as a personal pathology but also as a psychosocial response that can illuminate HEPs’ perceptions of institutional misalignment with sustainability commitments, with implications for higher education’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Full Text

Climate change is increasingly recognised not only as an ecological and political emergency, but also as a profound psychological issue and institutional challenge. Awareness of environmental crises, including global heating, biodiversity loss, and transgressions of planetary boundaries, has intensified worldwide (Kurth & Pihkala, 2022). These developments have far-reaching psychological consequences, giving rise to emotions such as fear, grief, anger, and despair (Clayton, 2020; Coffey et al., 2021). Scholars across psychology, education, and sustainability science now identify these climate emotions as critical for understanding both individual and institutional engagement in sustainability transitions (Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b). Among them, eco-anxiety—that is, distress associated with awareness of environmental decline and perceived systemic inadequacy—has emerged as a defining psychosocial phenomenon of the Anthropocene (Verplanken et al., 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2022).
Although eco-anxiety is not classified as a clinical disorder, its emotional and functional effects are well-documented. It comprises cognitive appraisals of existential threat, moral dissonance, and helplessness, often linked to perceptions of governmental and institutional failure (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Wang et al., 2023). Research has connected these emotions to broader issues of trust, legitimacy, and governance, revealing that climate distress is relational, arising not only from environmental threat but also from the erosion of confidence in societal actors expected to respond (Ogunbode et al., 2022; Ojala, 2017). Consequently, eco-anxiety represents a nexus between mental well-being, ethics, and institutional accountability rather than a solely individual psychological response.
Understanding eco-anxiety within the higher education sector is crucial for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Universities serve as both knowledge producers and societal exemplars; they educate future leaders, inform public policy, and advance sustainability science (Leal Filho et al., 2025). Yet, their sustainability engagement is often contradictory. Many HEIs espouse climate responsibility rhetorically while maintaining high-carbon infrastructures, competitive performance regimes, and investment portfolios misaligned with ecological goals (Helmers et al., 2021; Phelan & Lumb, 2021). Such contradictions create institutional dissonance—a gap between ethical commitment and operational practice—that undermines legitimacy and public trust (Ruiz-Mallén & Heras, 2020).
For higher-education professionals (HEPs)—that is, academics, researchers, and leaders in higher education institutions—this dissonance manifests both ethically and emotionally. Many strongly identify with environmental and social justice values and believe in their integration into the classroom, yet perceive limited agency within bureaucratic or marketized institutional systems for substantive change, raising concerns about student well-being (Skilling et al., 2022). Eco-anxiety among HEPs may, therefore, represent not only planetary concern but also distress arising from the perceived loss of faith in the institutional integrity of social bodies like the government and their own universities. Understanding these emotions provides insight into the social sustainability of knowledge institutions, including their capacity to maintain moral coherence, transparency, and trust amid climate crises.
Empirical research on eco-anxiety has focused mainly on youth, activists, or general populations (Verplanken et al., 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2022). These studies show that climate worry is pervasive and closely tied to perceptions of governmental inadequacy (Ogunbode et al., 2022). However, professionals embedded within sustainability-oriented institutions remain underexplored, despite their pivotal role in climate knowledge production and societal leadership (Pihkala, 2020b). HEPs occupy a dual position as educators of sustainable futures and employees within organisations that may fail to embody them-a moral and occupational paradox that heightens emotional strain (Kelly, 2017; Tollefson, 2021). Early qualitative evidence indicates that sustainability educators frequently experience disillusionment, burnout, and a sense of futility when institutional climate actions are symbolic or performative (Skilling et al., 2022; O’Neill, 2023). Yet systematic, cross-national analysis of eco-anxiety in this group remains undeveloped.
To address this gap, the present study integrates Cognitive Appraisal Theory (CAT) (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which posits that emotions arise from two core appraisals:
Applied to climate psychology, these appraisals extend beyond individual coping to encompass collective actors, such as governments and institutions, which have emerged as a focus of climate studies among youth (Hickman et al., 2021). When individuals perceive high environmental threat and experience solastalgia (Albrecht et al., 2007), accompanied by low systemic adequacy, anxiety, and moral distress, they can both intensify. Conversely, transparent and participatory governance can transform anxiety into constructive engagement by reinforcing collective efficacy and trust (Ojala, 2017).
This study proposes an Institutional Appraisal Model of Eco-Anxiety (IAMEA), conceptualising eco-anxiety as a relational emotion generated through the interaction between existential threat appraisals and perceptions of institutional authenticity and moral adequacy. In this model, eco-anxiety operates not as a deterministic indicator but as a potential psychosocial signal of perceived alignment or misalignment between institutional rhetoric and climate action. Recognising eco-anxiety in this way reframes it away from an individual pathology to a context-dependent signal of moral injury, institutional strain, and perceived deficits in organisational trustworthiness (Litz et al., 2009).
This study employed a cross-sectional mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collected through a single online survey. The approach was designed to capture both the breadth and depth of eco-anxiety as experienced by HEPs—a phenomenon that is simultaneously psychological, moral, and institutional in nature. Quantitative data provided numerical estimates of the prevalence and associations of climate worry, while qualitative narratives offered interpretive insights into its emotional, ethical, and organisational dimensions, presented thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Combining these strands enabled triangulation between measurable correlational associations and lived meanings, enhancing both validity and explanatory richness. A mixed-methods approach was selected because eco-anxiety encompasses affective, cognitive, and relational processes (Pihkala, 2022a), which are insufficiently captured by quantitative scales alone. The integration of numerical and narrative data supports a more holistic account of how professional actors appraise the adequacy of institutions and governments in responding to the climate crisis.
The research was grounded in a critical realist epistemology, recognising that emotions such as eco-anxiety are both real psychological experiences and socially mediated phenomena (Pihkala, 2020a, 2022b; Hickman et al., 2021). This position assumes that climate-related distress arises not only from environmental threat but also from institutional discourses, governance structures, and trust relationships that shape individual appraisal and collective meaning-making (Pihkala, 2020a). The critical realist stance aligns with the study’s aim to examine eco-anxiety as a relational and ethically grounded emotion—one that reflects the interaction between existential threat appraisal and institutional legitimacy rather than individual pathology. This design is consistent with emerging best practice in sustainability psychology, in which researchers increasingly combine statistical and narrative data to illuminate how professionals and organisations experience climate-related emotions and responsibility (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018). The study does not infer causality from cross-sectional data; instead, it uses mixed methods to explore patterned associations and their contextualised meanings.
As open online recruitment was used, a precise response rate could not be calculated. However, participation levels are typical for professional cohort studies in higher education, where the focus is on within-group mechanisms rather than population prevalence (Winfield & Paris, 2024). Given the self-selected recruitment pathways, the sample is not statistically representative of the global HEP population. Instead, it reflects a segment of professionals who were willing to engage with climate-related topics, which may bias the sample toward individuals with stronger concerns or pre-existing interest in sustainability. This limitation is acknowledged explicitly and informs the study’s interpretive rather than prevalence-focused aims.
A total of 556 valid responses met the inclusion criteria, representing participants from 51 countries across six global regions: Europe (41.5%), North America (23.2%), Asia–Pacific (17.8%), Africa (7.4%), Latin America (6.3%), and the Middle East (3.8%). This distribution demonstrates broad geographic coverage, enabling cross-contextual interpretation, but does not support claims of national or regional representativeness. Demographic characteristics—including gender, role type, and years of professional experience—are summarised in Table 1.
The sample size of N = 556 provides robust statistical power for the analyses conducted. With α = 0.05, two predictors in the regression model, and an expected small-to-moderate effect size (f2 ≈ 0.02–0.05), post hoc power analysis indicated >0.95 power to detect significant associations (Faul et al., 2009). This exceeds recommended thresholds for cross-sectional psychological research. Given the correlational design, power is interpreted in terms of detecting associations rather than causal effects. Self-selection likely increased the proportion of sustainability-engaged respondents, as addressed in the Discussion.
The primary quantitative instrument was an adapted version of the Climate Anxiety Scale developed by Hickman et al. (2021). Originally validated for youth, this scale captures a multidimensional profile encompassing affective responses (e.g., sadness, fear, helplessness), cognitive appraisals (e.g., perceptions of planetary failure and future threat), and perceived societal and political inaction. Because this study focused on HEPs, the original scale was adapted to include occupational and institutional dimensions of climate concern. The adapted instrument comprised four conceptual domains:
Alternative measures, such as the Climate Anxiety Scale and the Eco-Anxiety Scale (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021), were reviewed but not selected. While both instruments offer valuable insight into the affective and clinical aspects of climate distress, they primarily emphasise individual symptomatology. They do not adequately capture the institutional and sociopolitical contexts in which climate emotions often arise among professionals working in education, research, and policy. Hickman and colleagues’ instrument was therefore selected for its explicit inclusion of the relational and contextual dimensions of eco-anxiety, including perceived governmental inadequacy, institutional strain, and a sense of abandonment by leadership systems expected to address the climate crisis (Hickman et al., 2021). These sociopolitical dimensions are increasingly recognised as central to understanding eco-anxiety among individuals with strong ethical and professional identification with climate responsibility. Accordingly, the adapted Hickman scale provided the best theoretical and empirical fit for the present study’s aim: to conceptualise eco-anxiety not only as an individual emotional response but as an institutionally mediated psychosocial experience grounded in appraisals of trust, legitimacy, and moral adequacy.
To enhance interpretive richness, the survey included a single optional open-ended question inviting participants to reflect on the emotional and professional implications of climate change: “Do you have any personal reflections, experiences, or thoughts about how climate change affects you emotionally or professionally?” This item was designed to elicit narrative accounts spanning emotional, cognitive, and institutional dimensions not captured by quantitative scales. The inclusion of qualitative data aligns with calls for greater attention to narrative and phenomenological approaches to the study of climate emotions (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018). In total, 206 participants (37.0%) provided narrative responses. Their diversity illuminated the ways eco-anxiety manifests across affective, cognitive, and institutional domains. Integrating these accounts with the quantitative data enabled a multidimensional analysis of eco-anxiety among HEPs—revealing not only its prevalence and predictors but also how climate distress is shaped by perceived failures of leadership, systemic inaction, and organisational culture.
Qualitative data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006), supported by NVivo 14 software. CAT served as a sensitising framework, linking participants’ emotional expressions to appraisals of climate threat, institutional response adequacy, and collective efficacy (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Analysis proceeded through the following iterative stages:
Across the total sample (N = 556), concern about climate change was high. A total of 81.3% of respondents reported feeling very or extremely worried about climate change, yielding a mean score of 4.26 (SD = 0.93) on a 5-point scale. Negative emotions were widespread: 82.0% reported sadness, 68.7% reported feeling both anxious and angry, 67.1% reported feeling helpless, and 66.5% reported feeling powerless. Fear was reported by 63.3%, and guilt by 50.2%. By contrast, only 14.0% expressed optimism and 11.5% reported indifference (Figure 1).
Participants’ cognitive appraisals of climate change reflected similarly bleak perspectives. More than 91.9% agreed with the statement “people have failed to take care of the planet,” and 78.8% described the future as “frightening” (see Figure 2). These beliefs, grounded in emotional appraisal theory, underscore the intersection between existential concern and institutional or systemic trust.
Participants’ secondary appraisals—that is, their evaluations of the adequacy and authenticity of collective responses—were also bleak. Only 5.2% of respondents believed their government was doing enough to avert a climate catastrophe, while 72.8% reported feeling betrayed by governmental inaction. Mean adequacy scores were 2.01 (SD = 0.95) for government and 2.35 (SD = 1.12) for institutions. Figure 3 captures the key beliefs. Governmental betrayal correlated strongly with climate worry (r = 0.481, p < 0.001), and regression analysis confirmed it as a significant predictor (β = 0.481, t = 9.454, p < 0.001; adj R2 = 0.256). Table 2 captures the correlations.
Indeed, at the institutional level, respondents conveyed similar distrust. Although 22.7% felt reassured by their institution’s climate initiatives, 70.9% did not, and 43.7% reported feeling unprotected by institutional policies. While the correlation between institutional betrayal and climate worry was significant (r = 0.365, p < 0.001), institutional adequacy was a weaker predictor than governmental betrayal (β = 0.043, p = 0.395), suggesting that national-level failures weigh more heavily on affective outcomes. Figure 4 captures the beliefs expressed.
The study adds further theoretical and empirical insight by situating eco-anxiety within professional and institutional contexts. While previous scholarship has rightly associated eco-anxiety with perceptions of global threat, uncertainty, and helplessness (Pihkala, 2022a), this research demonstrates that in professional populations, distress is strongly mediated by trust, specifically in systemic responses. Perceived governmental inaction emerged as the strongest correlate of climate worry, aligning with evidence that deficits in efficacy and legitimacy magnify anxiety in young people (Hickman et al., 2021). Institutional responses were evaluated somewhat more favourably but were often described as inconsistent or performative, echoing critiques of “symbolic sustainability” and “greenwashing” within universities. These findings highlight that eco-anxiety in higher education arises not only from fear of ecological collapse but from perceived misalignments between institutional commitments and action, which many respondents interpreted as an abdication of moral responsibility.
Qualitative narratives captured this dynamic vividly. Participants described institutional dissonance—the incongruence between universities’ rhetorical commitments to sustainability and their operational realities. When initiatives were confined to publicity or incremental targets, respondents reported moral exhaustion, loss of purpose, and diminished identification with institutional missions. Similar patterns have been observed among sustainability educators and professionals facing value misalignment and ethical strain (Skilling et al., 2022). This study, therefore, provides additional evidence that eco-anxiety can be experienced as a response to perceived institutional inconsistencies, in which emotional distress reflects moral misalignment and the erosion of trust rather than solely environmental threat appraisal.
The emotional mechanisms underlying these experiences are consistent with CAT. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), emotions result from two linked evaluations: the perceived severity of threat (primary appraisal) and perceived adequacy of coping resources (secondary appraisal). For HEPs, climate change is not merely an environmental crisis but also a professional and ethical one. Participants perceived a high existential threat, coupled with low institutional and governmental capacity, which produced anger, helplessness, and moral fatigue. When sustainability rhetoric lacked credibility, cognitive dissonance intensified this distress by exposing contradictions between personal and collective ethics. The proposed IAMEA concept extends this theory by conceptualising eco-anxiety as a relational emotion produced by the interaction between threat appraisal and evaluations of institutional adequacy, authenticity, and legitimacy. Rather than a symptom of individual fragility, eco-anxiety in this model represents an emotion shaped by the perceived adequacy of systemic responses.
Compared with existing eco-anxiety literature, the findings situate this research within and beyond it. Studies of youth populations emphasise anticipatory grief and loss of future security (Hickman et al., 2021). In contrast, this work reveals a more reflexive, institutionally mediated distress among professionals charged with enacting sustainability agendas. It shows that expertise does not inoculate against anxiety; instead, awareness coupled with systemic impotence may be associated with higher levels of distress. By empirically linking trust deficits to emotional outcomes, the study bridges climate psychology and organisational research, responding to calls for interdisciplinary approaches to the social determinants of eco-emotions (Coffey et al., 2021).
Methodological contributions further strengthen the study’s value. Adapting the Hickman Climate Anxiety Scale for professional contexts extends its validity beyond youth samples and confirms the reliability of institutional-level appraisal items (Hickman et al., 2021). The mixed-methods design addresses recent calls to combine quantitative generalisability with qualitative depth in climate-emotion research (Coffey et al., 2021). While the self-selected English-language sample limits generalisability, the study provides an exploratory cross-national portrait of eco-anxiety in higher education, suggesting that concerns about institutional adequacy may be widely shared, though further representative sampling is required. Future longitudinal and cross-cultural work should test IAMEA’s conceptual utility, explore sectoral differences, and examine whether reforms in governance or leadership coincide with changes in perceptions of legitimacy and agency.

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B13-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B4-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B6-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B21-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B22-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B28-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B17-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1. Introduction\", \"text\": \"Climate change is increasingly recognised not only as an ecological and political emergency, but also as a profound psychological issue and institutional challenge. Awareness of environmental crises, including global heating, biodiversity loss, and transgressions of planetary boundaries, has intensified worldwide (Kurth & Pihkala, 2022). These developments have far-reaching psychological consequences, giving rise to emotions such as fear, grief, anger, and despair (Clayton, 2020; Coffey et al., 2021). Scholars across psychology, education, and sustainability science now identify these climate emotions as critical for understanding both individual and institutional engagement in sustainability transitions (Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b). Among them, eco-anxiety\\u2014that is, distress associated with awareness of environmental decline and perceived systemic inadequacy\\u2014has emerged as a defining psychosocial phenomenon of the Anthropocene (Verplanken et al., 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2022).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B5-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B3-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B29-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B17-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B18-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1. Introduction\", \"text\": \"Although eco-anxiety is not classified as a clinical disorder, its emotional and functional effects are well-documented. It comprises cognitive appraisals of existential threat, moral dissonance, and helplessness, often linked to perceptions of governmental and institutional failure (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Wang et al., 2023). Research has connected these emotions to broader issues of trust, legitimacy, and governance, revealing that climate distress is relational, arising not only from environmental threat but also from the erosion of confidence in societal actors expected to respond (Ogunbode et al., 2022; Ojala, 2017). Consequently, eco-anxiety represents a nexus between mental well-being, ethics, and institutional accountability rather than a solely individual psychological response.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B15-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B9-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B20-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B25-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.1. Higher Education and the Emotional Dimensions of Sustainability\", \"text\": \"Understanding eco-anxiety within the higher education sector is crucial for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Universities serve as both knowledge producers and societal exemplars; they educate future leaders, inform public policy, and advance sustainability science (Leal Filho et al., 2025). Yet, their sustainability engagement is often contradictory. Many HEIs espouse climate responsibility rhetorically while maintaining high-carbon infrastructures, competitive performance regimes, and investment portfolios misaligned with ecological goals (Helmers et al., 2021; Phelan & Lumb, 2021). Such contradictions create institutional dissonance\\u2014a gap between ethical commitment and operational practice\\u2014that undermines legitimacy and public trust (Ruiz-Mall\\u00e9n & Heras, 2020).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B26-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.1. Higher Education and the Emotional Dimensions of Sustainability\", \"text\": \"For higher-education professionals (HEPs)\\u2014that is, academics, researchers, and leaders in higher education institutions\\u2014this dissonance manifests both ethically and emotionally. Many strongly identify with environmental and social justice values and believe in their integration into the classroom, yet perceive limited agency within bureaucratic or marketized institutional systems for substantive change, raising concerns about student well-being (Skilling et al., 2022). Eco-anxiety among HEPs may, therefore, represent not only planetary concern but also distress arising from the perceived loss of faith in the institutional integrity of social bodies like the government and their own universities. Understanding these emotions provides insight into the social sustainability of knowledge institutions, including their capacity to maintain moral coherence, transparency, and trust amid climate crises.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B28-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B17-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B17-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B22-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B12-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B27-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B26-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B19-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.2. Eco-Anxiety Beyond Youth: The Professional Gap\", \"text\": \"Empirical research on eco-anxiety has focused mainly on youth, activists, or general populations (Verplanken et al., 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2022). These studies show that climate worry is pervasive and closely tied to perceptions of governmental inadequacy (Ogunbode et al., 2022). However, professionals embedded within sustainability-oriented institutions remain underexplored, despite their pivotal role in climate knowledge production and societal leadership (Pihkala, 2020b). HEPs occupy a dual position as educators of sustainable futures and employees within organisations that may fail to embody them-a moral and occupational paradox that heightens emotional strain (Kelly, 2017; Tollefson, 2021). Early qualitative evidence indicates that sustainability educators frequently experience disillusionment, burnout, and a sense of futility when institutional climate actions are symbolic or performative (Skilling et al., 2022; O\\u2019Neill, 2023). Yet systematic, cross-national analysis of eco-anxiety in this group remains undeveloped.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B14-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.3. Theoretical Integration: Cognitive Appraisal and Institutional Trust\", \"text\": \"To address this gap, the present study integrates Cognitive Appraisal Theory (CAT) (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which posits that emotions arise from two core appraisals:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B1-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B18-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.3. Theoretical Integration: Cognitive Appraisal and Institutional Trust\", \"text\": \"Applied to climate psychology, these appraisals extend beyond individual coping to encompass collective actors, such as governments and institutions, which have emerged as a focus of climate studies among youth (Hickman et al., 2021). When individuals perceive high environmental threat and experience solastalgia (Albrecht et al., 2007), accompanied by low systemic adequacy, anxiety, and moral distress, they can both intensify. Conversely, transparent and participatory governance can transform anxiety into constructive engagement by reinforcing collective efficacy and trust (Ojala, 2017).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B16-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"1.3. Theoretical Integration: Cognitive Appraisal and Institutional Trust\", \"text\": \"This study proposes an Institutional Appraisal Model of Eco-Anxiety (IAMEA), conceptualising eco-anxiety as a relational emotion generated through the interaction between existential threat appraisals and perceptions of institutional authenticity and moral adequacy. In this model, eco-anxiety operates not as a deterministic indicator but as a potential psychosocial signal of perceived alignment or misalignment between institutional rhetoric and climate action. Recognising eco-anxiety in this way reframes it away from an individual pathology to a context-dependent signal of moral injury, institutional strain, and perceived deficits in organisational trustworthiness (Litz et al., 2009).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B2-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B23-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.1. Study Design and Rationale\", \"text\": \"This study employed a cross-sectional mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collected through a single online survey. The approach was designed to capture both the breadth and depth of eco-anxiety as experienced by HEPs\\u2014a phenomenon that is simultaneously psychological, moral, and institutional in nature. Quantitative data provided numerical estimates of the prevalence and associations of climate worry, while qualitative narratives offered interpretive insights into its emotional, ethical, and organisational dimensions, presented thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Combining these strands enabled triangulation between measurable correlational associations and lived meanings, enhancing both validity and explanatory richness. A mixed-methods approach was selected because eco-anxiety encompasses affective, cognitive, and relational processes (Pihkala, 2022a), which are insufficiently captured by quantitative scales alone. The integration of numerical and narrative data supports a more holistic account of how professional actors appraise the adequacy of institutions and governments in responding to the climate crisis.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B21-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B24-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B21-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B7-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.1. Study Design and Rationale\", \"text\": \"The research was grounded in a critical realist epistemology, recognising that emotions such as eco-anxiety are both real psychological experiences and socially mediated phenomena (Pihkala, 2020a, 2022b; Hickman et al., 2021). This position assumes that climate-related distress arises not only from environmental threat but also from institutional discourses, governance structures, and trust relationships that shape individual appraisal and collective meaning-making (Pihkala, 2020a). The critical realist stance aligns with the study\\u2019s aim to examine eco-anxiety as a relational and ethically grounded emotion\\u2014one that reflects the interaction between existential threat appraisal and institutional legitimacy rather than individual pathology. This design is consistent with emerging best practice in sustainability psychology, in which researchers increasingly combine statistical and narrative data to illuminate how professionals and organisations experience climate-related emotions and responsibility (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018). The study does not infer causality from cross-sectional data; instead, it uses mixed methods to explore patterned associations and their contextualised meanings.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B30-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.2. Participants and Sampling\", \"text\": \"As open online recruitment was used, a precise response rate could not be calculated. However, participation levels are typical for professional cohort studies in higher education, where the focus is on within-group mechanisms rather than population prevalence (Winfield & Paris, 2024). Given the self-selected recruitment pathways, the sample is not statistically representative of the global HEP population. Instead, it reflects a segment of professionals who were willing to engage with climate-related topics, which may bias the sample toward individuals with stronger concerns or pre-existing interest in sustainability. This limitation is acknowledged explicitly and informs the study\\u2019s interpretive rather than prevalence-focused aims.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ejihpe-16-00006-t001\"], \"section\": \"2.2. Participants and Sampling\", \"text\": \"A total of 556 valid responses met the inclusion criteria, representing participants from 51 countries across six global regions: Europe (41.5%), North America (23.2%), Asia\\u2013Pacific (17.8%), Africa (7.4%), Latin America (6.3%), and the Middle East (3.8%). This distribution demonstrates broad geographic coverage, enabling cross-contextual interpretation, but does not support claims of national or regional representativeness. Demographic characteristics\\u2014including gender, role type, and years of professional experience\\u2014are summarised in Table 1.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B8-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.2. Participants and Sampling\", \"text\": \"The sample size of N = 556 provides robust statistical power for the analyses conducted. With \\u03b1 = 0.05, two predictors in the regression model, and an expected small-to-moderate effect size (f2 \\u2248 0.02\\u20130.05), post hoc power analysis indicated >0.95 power to detect significant associations (Faul et al., 2009). This exceeds recommended thresholds for cross-sectional psychological research. Given the correlational design, power is interpreted in terms of detecting associations rather than causal effects. Self-selection likely increased the proportion of sustainability-engaged respondents, as addressed in the Discussion.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.3. Data Collection and Instruments\", \"text\": \"The primary quantitative instrument was an adapted version of the Climate Anxiety Scale developed by Hickman et al. (2021). Originally validated for youth, this scale captures a multidimensional profile encompassing affective responses (e.g., sadness, fear, helplessness), cognitive appraisals (e.g., perceptions of planetary failure and future threat), and perceived societal and political inaction. Because this study focused on HEPs, the original scale was adapted to include occupational and institutional dimensions of climate concern. The adapted instrument comprised four conceptual domains:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B5-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B11-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.3. Data Collection and Instruments\", \"text\": \"Alternative measures, such as the Climate Anxiety Scale and the Eco-Anxiety Scale (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021), were reviewed but not selected. While both instruments offer valuable insight into the affective and clinical aspects of climate distress, they primarily emphasise individual symptomatology. They do not adequately capture the institutional and sociopolitical contexts in which climate emotions often arise among professionals working in education, research, and policy. Hickman and colleagues\\u2019 instrument was therefore selected for its explicit inclusion of the relational and contextual dimensions of eco-anxiety, including perceived governmental inadequacy, institutional strain, and a sense of abandonment by leadership systems expected to address the climate crisis (Hickman et al., 2021). These sociopolitical dimensions are increasingly recognised as central to understanding eco-anxiety among individuals with strong ethical and professional identification with climate responsibility. Accordingly, the adapted Hickman scale provided the best theoretical and empirical fit for the present study\\u2019s aim: to conceptualise eco-anxiety not only as an individual emotional response but as an institutionally mediated psychosocial experience grounded in appraisals of trust, legitimacy, and moral adequacy.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B7-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.3. Data Collection and Instruments\", \"text\": \"To enhance interpretive richness, the survey included a single optional open-ended question inviting participants to reflect on the emotional and professional implications of climate change: \\u201cDo you have any personal reflections, experiences, or thoughts about how climate change affects you emotionally or professionally?\\u201d This item was designed to elicit narrative accounts spanning emotional, cognitive, and institutional dimensions not captured by quantitative scales. The inclusion of qualitative data aligns with calls for greater attention to narrative and phenomenological approaches to the study of climate emotions (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018). In total, 206 participants (37.0%) provided narrative responses. Their diversity illuminated the ways eco-anxiety manifests across affective, cognitive, and institutional domains. Integrating these accounts with the quantitative data enabled a multidimensional analysis of eco-anxiety among HEPs\\u2014revealing not only its prevalence and predictors but also how climate distress is shaped by perceived failures of leadership, systemic inaction, and organisational culture.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B2-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B14-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"2.4. Data Analysis\", \"text\": \"Qualitative data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006), supported by NVivo 14 software. CAT served as a sensitising framework, linking participants\\u2019 emotional expressions to appraisals of climate threat, institutional response adequacy, and collective efficacy (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Analysis proceeded through the following iterative stages:\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ejihpe-16-00006-f001\"], \"section\": \"3.1. Primary Appraisal: Existential Threat and Loss\", \"text\": \"Across the total sample (N = 556), concern about climate change was high. A total of 81.3% of respondents reported feeling very or extremely worried about climate change, yielding a mean score of 4.26 (SD = 0.93) on a 5-point scale. Negative emotions were widespread: 82.0% reported sadness, 68.7% reported feeling both anxious and angry, 67.1% reported feeling helpless, and 66.5% reported feeling powerless. Fear was reported by 63.3%, and guilt by 50.2%. By contrast, only 14.0% expressed optimism and 11.5% reported indifference (Figure 1).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ejihpe-16-00006-f002\"], \"section\": \"3.1. Primary Appraisal: Existential Threat and Loss\", \"text\": \"Participants\\u2019 cognitive appraisals of climate change reflected similarly bleak perspectives. More than 91.9% agreed with the statement \\u201cpeople have failed to take care of the planet,\\u201d and 78.8% described the future as \\u201cfrightening\\u201d (see Figure 2). These beliefs, grounded in emotional appraisal theory, underscore the intersection between existential concern and institutional or systemic trust.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ejihpe-16-00006-f003\", \"ejihpe-16-00006-t002\"], \"section\": \"3.2. Secondary Appraisal: Institutional Adequacy and Moral Disillusionment\", \"text\": \"Participants\\u2019 secondary appraisals\\u2014that is, their evaluations of the adequacy and authenticity of collective responses\\u2014were also bleak. Only 5.2% of respondents believed their government was doing enough to avert a climate catastrophe, while 72.8% reported feeling betrayed by governmental inaction. Mean adequacy scores were 2.01 (SD = 0.95) for government and 2.35 (SD = 1.12) for institutions. Figure 3 captures the key beliefs. Governmental betrayal correlated strongly with climate worry (r = 0.481, p < 0.001), and regression analysis confirmed it as a significant predictor (\\u03b2 = 0.481, t = 9.454, p < 0.001; adj R2 = 0.256). Table 2 captures the correlations.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"ejihpe-16-00006-f004\"], \"section\": \"3.2. Secondary Appraisal: Institutional Adequacy and Moral Disillusionment\", \"text\": \"Indeed, at the institutional level, respondents conveyed similar distrust. Although 22.7% felt reassured by their institution\\u2019s climate initiatives, 70.9% did not, and 43.7% reported feeling unprotected by institutional policies. While the correlation between institutional betrayal and climate worry was significant (r = 0.365, p < 0.001), institutional adequacy was a weaker predictor than governmental betrayal (\\u03b2 = 0.043, p = 0.395), suggesting that national-level failures weigh more heavily on affective outcomes. Figure 4 captures the beliefs expressed.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B23-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"4. Discussion\", \"text\": \"The study adds further theoretical and empirical insight by situating eco-anxiety within professional and institutional contexts. While previous scholarship has rightly associated eco-anxiety with perceptions of global threat, uncertainty, and helplessness (Pihkala, 2022a), this research demonstrates that in professional populations, distress is strongly mediated by trust, specifically in systemic responses. Perceived governmental inaction emerged as the strongest correlate of climate worry, aligning with evidence that deficits in efficacy and legitimacy magnify anxiety in young people (Hickman et al., 2021). Institutional responses were evaluated somewhat more favourably but were often described as inconsistent or performative, echoing critiques of \\u201csymbolic sustainability\\u201d and \\u201cgreenwashing\\u201d within universities. These findings highlight that eco-anxiety in higher education arises not only from fear of ecological collapse but from perceived misalignments between institutional commitments and action, which many respondents interpreted as an abdication of moral responsibility.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B26-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"4. Discussion\", \"text\": \"Qualitative narratives captured this dynamic vividly. Participants described institutional dissonance\\u2014the incongruence between universities\\u2019 rhetorical commitments to sustainability and their operational realities. When initiatives were confined to publicity or incremental targets, respondents reported moral exhaustion, loss of purpose, and diminished identification with institutional missions. Similar patterns have been observed among sustainability educators and professionals facing value misalignment and ethical strain (Skilling et al., 2022). This study, therefore, provides additional evidence that eco-anxiety can be experienced as a response to perceived institutional inconsistencies, in which emotional distress reflects moral misalignment and the erosion of trust rather than solely environmental threat appraisal.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B14-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B14-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"4. Discussion\", \"text\": \"The emotional mechanisms underlying these experiences are consistent with CAT. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), emotions result from two linked evaluations: the perceived severity of threat (primary appraisal) and perceived adequacy of coping resources (secondary appraisal). For HEPs, climate change is not merely an environmental crisis but also a professional and ethical one. Participants perceived a high existential threat, coupled with low institutional and governmental capacity, which produced anger, helplessness, and moral fatigue. When sustainability rhetoric lacked credibility, cognitive dissonance intensified this distress by exposing contradictions between personal and collective ethics. The proposed IAMEA concept extends this theory by conceptualising eco-anxiety as a relational emotion produced by the interaction between threat appraisal and evaluations of institutional adequacy, authenticity, and legitimacy. Rather than a symptom of individual fragility, eco-anxiety in this model represents an emotion shaped by the perceived adequacy of systemic responses.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B6-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"4. Discussion\", \"text\": \"Compared with existing eco-anxiety literature, the findings situate this research within and beyond it. Studies of youth populations emphasise anticipatory grief and loss of future security (Hickman et al., 2021). In contrast, this work reveals a more reflexive, institutionally mediated distress among professionals charged with enacting sustainability agendas. It shows that expertise does not inoculate against anxiety; instead, awareness coupled with systemic impotence may be associated with higher levels of distress. By empirically linking trust deficits to emotional outcomes, the study bridges climate psychology and organisational research, responding to calls for interdisciplinary approaches to the social determinants of eco-emotions (Coffey et al., 2021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12839761\", \"pmid\": \"\", \"reference_ids\": [\"B10-ejihpe-16-00006\", \"B6-ejihpe-16-00006\"], \"section\": \"4. Discussion\", \"text\": \"Methodological contributions further strengthen the study\\u2019s value. Adapting the Hickman Climate Anxiety Scale for professional contexts extends its validity beyond youth samples and confirms the reliability of institutional-level appraisal items (Hickman et al., 2021). The mixed-methods design addresses recent calls to combine quantitative generalisability with qualitative depth in climate-emotion research (Coffey et al., 2021). While the self-selected English-language sample limits generalisability, the study provides an exploratory cross-national portrait of eco-anxiety in higher education, suggesting that concerns about institutional adequacy may be widely shared, though further representative sampling is required. Future longitudinal and cross-cultural work should test IAMEA\\u2019s conceptual utility, explore sectoral differences, and examine whether reforms in governance or leadership coincide with changes in perceptions of legitimacy and agency.\"}]"

Metadata

"{}"