Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Review
Affect, (group-based) emotions, and climate change
action
Nicole S. Harth
Abstract
While there is little scientific doubt that the climate is actually
changing, people are relatively averse to taking action. To
better understand climate change (in-)action, I will summarize
the recent literature that examines the affective and emotional
processes associated with climate change. Currently, mainly
two routes are discussed: first, the study of affective responses
to risk perception and second, conceptualizing climate action
as a collective phenomenon. Studies show that personal
relevance and perceived importance of environmental issues
increase risk perception and that collective environmental ac-
tions are driven by group-based emotions. However, instead of
focusing mainly on negative affect and (group-based) emo-
tions, such as ‘eco guilt’ or fear related to climate change, I
conclude by suggesting a more optimistic and positive
approach to establish new norms of climate-friendly lifestyles
and policies.
Addresses
Ernst-Abbe University of Applied Science, Carl-Zeiss Promenade 2,
07745, Jena, Germany
Corresponding author: Harth, Nicole S. (nicole.harth@eah-jena.de)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
This review comes from a themed issue on Psychology of Climate
Change (2021)
Edited by Mark A. Ferguson and Michael T. Schmitt
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 27 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.018
2352-250X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Affect, Emotion, Group-based emotion, Collective climate change
action.
Affect and group-based emotions related to
climate change
Climate change represents a major challenge for hu-
manity on a global scale. The topic’s polarizing effects
become apparent in the strong emotions targeting Greta
Thunberg, the young Swedish climate activist. Greta
Thunberg, who started the ‘Fridays for Future’ move-
ment, has received both strong support and strong
criticism from politicians, the press, and social media,
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
ranging from more objective criticism to hatred and
verbal attacks. The emotional reactions toward her ex-
press the opinions and feelings that people hold with
regard to climate change [1]. While there is little sci-
entific doubt that the climate is actually changing [2],
and that the effects can be felt globally, why is climate
change action so controversial? And why are many
people averse to taking action? The present review ex-
amines the role of affect and emotion in climate change
action and suggests a more optimistic approach that
considers climate action as a collective phenomenon.
Climate change is difficult to grasp: humans do not
appear to be ‘well-equipped’ to identify such a complex
issue [3*], which builds a psychological barrier to climate
actions. People often perceive climate change as a distant
threat that is irrelevant to them personally [4]. Thus,
several psychological processes can hinder or motivate
actions related to climate change [5]: first, a state of
ignorance and denial about the existence of climate
change and second, a state in which affective processes
motivate or prevent people from climate-friendly action
[6,7]. To better understand why people do not act
climate-friendly, I summarize the literature that looks
into affective and emotional processes associated with
climate change. The systematic investigation of affect
and emotion is an emerging field that draws on emotion
science to explain pro-environmental intentions and ac-
tions of individuals and social groups. In addition, I will
consider climate change action as a form of collective
action and highlight the role of group-based emotions as a
key motivator of climate actions. Finally, I will identify
emerging trends and future directions in social psycho-
logical research on climate change.
Definitions: Affect and emotion—‘emotion is for
doing’
In psychology, the study of affect and emotion has a long
tradition [8]. How do the concepts of affect and emo-
tions differ? Both affect and discrete emotion reflect
feeling states. Affect refers to a more general feeling
state that varies along valence, arousal, and motivation.
Thus, affect has either a positive or negative valence
(good or bad); it is related to arousal, the activation of
the nervous system (the parasympathetic or sympa-
thetic system), and is associated with the motivation to
act (either to approach or avoid). Hence, affect is an
undifferentiated psychological feeling state, but has a
www.sciencedirect.com

significant impact on individuals’ cognitions and actions
[8,9].
The definition of emotion is more challenging, yet most
emotion researchers have agreed to describe (rather
than define) emotions as multicomponent phenomena
[8]. In this tradition, discrete (or differentiated) emo-
tions, such as anger or guilt, consist of the (1) attention
toward and appraisal of an object or event (cognition),
(2) subjective experience and awareness of having a
specific emotion (feeling), (3) physiological changes
associated with it (arousal), and (4) changes in gesture,
posture, and the intention to act (motivation). Thus,
the experience of specific emotions is seen as an act of
categorization of an inner ‘core affect’, guided by
embodied knowledge about emotion [10]. More spe-
cifically, situational factors will largely determine which
emotion category will be applied to a given affective
experience. In principle, this idea is consistent with the
more established appraisal theories of emotion [11].
Individual appraisals of stimuli elicit affective responses,
specific emotions, and corresponding action tendencies.
For the purpose of this review, I use appraisal theories as
an integrative framework for affective and emotional
approaches to climate change action. I will thus focus on
studies that investigated a subjective feeling component
as measured by self-report indicators, as well as behav-
ioral tendencies associated with climate-friendly action.
Affect and risk perception: A look at recent research
Affective processes are a recent addition to the rational
choiceebased models [12] that have dominated the
field of environmental psychology for a long time [13].
They focus on the link between affect and risk
perception. Most of these studies conceptualize affect
as a predictor of climate change risk perceptions [14,15].
Typically, participants are confronted with environ-
mental hazards (e.g. floods, earthquakes, nuclear acci-
dents) and then asked about their affective responses.
These are then correlated with risk perceptions. For
instance, when participants were asked to think about
the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in 2004, this
increased negative affect and perception of risk of
traveling to these areas [15]. However, despite the as-
sociation between negative affect and risk perception,
these studies show that, on average, people do not feel
very personally threatened by climate change [16,7].
Certainly, ignoring the risk of climate change has short-
term benefits because people do not have to change
their daily behavior and routines [7]. People see climate
change as a mostly distant phenomenon that might
affect other people, times, or places.
Among the relevant factors for climate change risk
perception, two psychological processes stand outdper-
ceived personal relevance and (negative) affective
www.sciencedirect.com
Affect, emotions and climate change Harth 141
responses [17,18]. Currently, several researchers examine
whether personal relevance and perceived importance of
environmental issues influence risk perception, affect,
and pro-environmental behavior [19]. In line with
appraisal theories of emotion [11], perceived relevance of
the situation is a basic cognitive requirement for affect
and emotion to occur. In a large-scale study, Howe et al.
[20] examined the extent to which respondents in 89
countries noticed changes in average local temperatures.
They found that individuals living in places with rising
average temperatures were also more likely to perceive
local warming. Similarly, people who are victims of natural
disasters or experience extreme weather events are more
concerned and perceive greater climate change risks
[21]. Compared with more industrialized countries,
people in developing countries perceive a greater risk of
climate change [22,23], as their livelihoods often are
dependent on natural resources. Nevertheless, recent
meta-analyses found that the conceptualization of per-
sonal relevance varies considerably between different
disciplines and that studies have overemphasized the
importance of personal experience. Other factorsdsuch
as affect, emotion, norms, and efficacy beliefsdare most
strongly associated with climate-friendly actions [24e
26].
(Negative) group-based emotion and climate-relevant
behavior
Among the increasing number of studies that investi-
gated specific emotions related to climate change,
emotions have sometimes been conceived as individual
responses, such that personal anxiety about genetically
modified food positively influences purchase behavior
and concern for the environment [27]. Discrete emo-
tions are generally better predictors of specific pro-
environmental behaviors than general affective re-
sponses [3]. Although this may be true, the individual-
istic focus on discrete emotions for climate changee
related behavior has been questioned [28*]. As an
alternative approach, the collective dimension of
climate-relevant emotions and actions has been
discussed [28*, 29]. From this perspective, climate
change is not only seen as a problem that should be
tackled at an individual level but also seen as a problem
of intergroup relations. Assuming that climate change
responses are group-based phenomena, it is important to
examine how individuals experience the climate-
relevant behavior of their social groupsdsuch as cities,
countries, or generations. For example, opinion polls
have found that younger generations are more
concerned about climate change than older generations
[30], and the vulnerable groups least responsible for
climate change are typically more directly affected than
groups with more power and privilege [31].
Therefore, group-based emotions present a useful
framework. The term group-based emotion refers to
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
142 Psychology of Climate Change (2021)
emotions that are experienced based on an
individual’s membership in a social group. If individuals
perceive themselves as members of a social group, they
are likely to experience emotions on behalf of their
group membership [32]. To illustrate, group-based guilt
has been defined as guilt that arises when individuals
believe their group is responsible for a misdeed. For
instance, when confronted with the colonial past or
illegitimate privileges of ones’ group, individuals report
feeling guilt based on their group membership, even
when they did not personally participate in the harmful
actions [33].
Some studies suggested that group-based guilt can
motivate people to behave in an environmentally friendly
manner [34], but findings regarding the link between
guilt and pro-environmental behavior are actually quite
mixed [35e38]. As one of the first studies, Ferguson and
Branscombe [36] showed that guilt about the in-group’s
role in climate change facilitated mitigating behavior.
Subsequent studies compared various emotional re-
sponses to explain distinct pro-environmental behaviors
[34,37]. For instance, repair of damages (e.g. waste sep-
aration) is different from investments in new, green ways
of living (e.g. waste avoidance). In a series of experi-
mental studies, Harth et al. [37] found that guilt about
the in-group’s responsibility for environmental damage is
specifically linked to intentions to repair corresponding
harmful outcomes (e.g. reducing the in-group’s carbon
emissions). More pro-environmental or achievement-
oriented actions, such as investment in green technolo-
gies or green product purchases, necessitate more posi-
tive emotions, such as group-based pride [37e39] or
optimism [40]. Taken together, research is starting to
discover the impact of distinct group-based emotions for
specific climate-relevant behaviors. These emotions may
even contribute to the formation of new identities and
group norms supporting a common goal of climate-
friendly action [41].
Outlook on positive and collective
approaches and conclusion
Affects and emotions are essential motivational drivers
for actions related to climate change at the individual and
group level. Hence, when political campaigns wish to
promote actions that positively affect climate change,
they should keep in mind that their campaigns might
trigger different emotions and, thus, different types of
climate-relevant intentions. For instance, a clear
emphasis on group-based guilt might unintentionally
elicit negative effects (esp. if people have readily avail-
able justifications for denying in-group responsibility)
and lead to moral disengagement or a limited focus on
repair intentions [37]. Climate-friendly behavior is often
portrayed as strenuous, costly, and difficult in everyday
life. Thus, even if ‘eco-guilt’ is adaptive in some situa-
tions, a chronic ‘bad conscious’ might lead to depressive
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
symptoms [42,43*] or to outrage driven by a need to
protect one’s moral identity [44]. Thus, well-meaning
attempts or campaigns to create urgency to reduce
climate change through guilt, anxiety, or anger can
sometimes lead to denial or unproductive behavior
[45,7]. I believe that people can be motivated to change
their lifestyle not only by the threat of negative
consequences but also by the perception that they can
increase their subjective well-being through sustainable
and climate-friendly behavior. Given the existing litera-
ture, it is important to focus on positive and more
approach-oriented emotions, such as pride, optimism, or
courage to inspire larger societal transformations
regarding climate protection. Positive affect and emo-
tions stimulate broader thinking and are more likely to
activate creative and innovative processes [46]. This
potential should be closely examined by researchers and
policy makers. Instead of focusing mainly on negative
emotions, rethinking in terms of more optimistic and
positive approaches can bring important benefits to our
collective efforts to address climate change.
Oftentimes, people who feel connected to nature [47],
or display environmental concern, report more positive
emotions toward nature and report greater efficacy
about adopting environmentally friendly lifestyles
[48,49*]. Emerging research suggests that anticipating
the warm feeling associated with climate-friendly
behavior can actually trigger a wide range of pro-
environmental behaviors [50]. Thus, we should learn
more about the conditions under which positive emo-
tions work in terms of empowerment for collective ac-
tions to reduce and adapt to climate change [51,52]. It
might be helpful to emphasize the positive feelings,
optimism, and joy, related to climate-friendly lifestyles
as well as the anticipation of future positive emotions
[38,3] when considering innovative investments into
climate-friendly research, campaigns, and technologies.
Another important contribution from social psychology is
the point that climate change action must be addressed
in terms of group processes and intergroup relations
[28*]. Responding to climate change requires coordi-
nated processes not just on the individual level but also
on the group level. Group-based appraisals and emotions
have been found to be important processes in collective
action [28*,33,37], with consequences for the formation
of collective norms and goals [41]. These can be used to
help establish climate-friendly lifestyles and policies.
Shared group identities, and with them group-based
emotions, could, for instance, be activated through
social marketing or political campaigns to increase the
salience or importance of a collective ‘we’ that cares
about protecting the climate.
Because more extreme weather events can be expected
due to climate change in the near future, climate psy-
chologists need to systematically consider their
www.sciencedirect.com

psychological effects on individuals and communities,
particularly regarding emotional states and coping be-
haviors. Thinking about climate change through a psy-
chological lens, with an emphasis on individual affects
and group-based emotions, can yield important insights
for how to address our global climate crisis.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
* of special interest
1. Sabherwal A, Ballew MT, van der Linden S, et al.: The Greta
Thunberg effect: familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts in-
tentions to engage in climate activism. J Appl Soc Psychol
2021, 51:321–333, https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12737.
2. IPCC Climate Change: Synthesis report. Contribution of working
groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovern-
mental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014.
3. Peeters W, Diependaele L, Sterckx S: Moral disengagement
* and the motivational gap in climate change. Ethical Theory &
Moral Pract 2019, 22:425–447, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10677-
019-09995-5.
This work highlights the issue of moral disengagement regarding
climate change and discusses innovative strategies that may help
reduce moral disengagement and the motivational gap in climate
change: self-efficacy, well-being, and positive emotions.
4. Smith N, Leiserowitz A: The role of emotion in global warming
policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 2014, 34:937–948,
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140.
5. Langford IH: An existential approach to risk perception. Risk
Anal 2002, 22:101–120.
6. Xie B, Brewer MB, Hayes BK, McDonald RI, Newell BR:
Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to
act. J Environ Psychol 2019, 65, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2019.101331. 0272–4944.
7. Swim JK, Clayton S, Howard GS: Human behavioral contribu-
tions to climate change: psychological and contextual
drivers. Am Psychol 2011, 66:251–264, https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0023472.
8. Barrett LF, Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM: Handbook of emotions.
New York, NY: Guildford Press; 2016.
9. Schwarz N: ‘Feelings-as-information theory’. Handbook Theo
Soc Psychol 2011, 1:289–308.
10. Russell JA, Barrett LF: Core affect, prototypical emotional
episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the
elephant. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999, 76:805–819, https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805.
11. Moors A, Ellsworth PC, Scherer KR, Frijda NH: Appraisal the-
ories of emotion: state of the art and future development.
Emotion Rev 2013, 5:119–124, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1754073912468165.
12. Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes; 1991:179–211. 50, [Special
issue: Theories of cognitive self-regulation].
13. Kaiser FG, Schultz PW, Berenguer J, Corral-Verdugo V,
Tankha G: Extending planned environmentalism: anticipated
guilt and embarrassment across cultures. Eur Psychol 2008,
13:288–297.
14. van der Linden S: On the relationship between personal
experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate
change. Eur J Soc Psychol 2014, 44:430–440.
www.sciencedirect.com
Affect, emotions and climate change Harth 143
15. Västfjäll D, Peters E, Slovic P: Affect, risk perception and future
optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgment Decis Mak
2008, 3:64–72.
16. Böhm G, Pfister H-R: Anticipated and experienced emotions in
environmental risk perception. Judgment Decis Mak 2008, 3:
73–86.
17. Goldberg MH, Gustafson A, van der Linden S: Leveraging social
solutions to generate lasting engagement with climate
change. One Earth 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oneear.2020.08.011.
18. van der Linden S: Determinants and measurement of climate
change risk perception, worry, and concern. In Oxford ency-
clopedia of climate change communication. Edited by Nisbet M,
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2017:369–401.
19. Bradley G, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser J: The role of climate
change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological
adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: a two nation
study. J Environ Psychol 2020. 68:101410.
20. Howe PD, Markowitz EM, Lee TM, Ko C-Y, Leiserowitz A: Global
perceptions of local temperature change. Nat Clim Change
2012, 3:352–356.
21. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Howe P:
Extreme weather and climate change in the American mind: yale
projecton climate change communication. New Haven, CT: Yale
University and George Mason University; 2013.
22. Haq SMA, Ahmed KJ: Perceptions about climate change
among university students in Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 2020,
103:3683–3713. https://doi.org/10.1007.
23. Young Kim S, Wolinsky-Nahmias Y: Cross-national public
opinion on climate change: the effects of affluence and
vulnerability. Global Environ Polit 2014, 14:79–106. MIT Press.
24. Hornsey M, Harris E, Bain P, et al.: Meta-analyses of the de-
terminants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim
Change 2016, 6:622–626, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943.
25. Reser Joseph P, Bradley Graham L: The nature, significance,
and influence of perceived personal experience of climate
change. WIREs Clim Change 2020, 11, https://doi.org/10.1002/
wcc.668.
26. van Valkengoed AM, Steg L: Meta-analyses of factors moti-
vating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat Clim Change
2019, 9:158–163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.
27. Laros FJM, Steenkamp JEBM: Importance of fear in the case of
genetically modified food. Psychol Market 2004, 21:898–908.
28. Fritsche I, Barth M, Jugert P, Masson T, Reese G: A social
* identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychol
Rev 2018, 125:245–269, https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090.
This paper demonstrates the importance of a social identity approach
to the climate crisis and reviews evidence for the importance of iden-
tification, norms, efficacy beliefs and emotions in climate change
action.
29. Wang S, Leviston Z, Hurlstone M, Lawrence C, Walker I: Emo-
tions predict policy support: why it matters how people feel
about climate change. Global Environ Change 2018, 50:25–40,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.03.002.
30. Gallup Analysis. 2018. retrieved from, https://news.gallup.com/
poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-younger-americans-
worried.aspx.
31. Markkanen S, Anger-Kraavi A: Social impacts of climate
change mitigation policies and their implications for
inequality. Clim Pol 2019, 19:827–844, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2019.1596873.
32. Mackie D, Smith E: Intergroup emotions theory: production,
regulation, and modification of group-based emotions. In
Olson J. Advances in experimental social psychology academic
press, vol. 58; 2018:1–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/
bs.aesp.2018.03.001.
33. Harth NS, Kessler T, Leach CW: Advantaged group’s
emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: the dynamics of
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
144 Psychology of Climate Change (2021)
pride, guilt, and sympathy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008, 34:
115–129.
34. Rees JH, Klug S, Bamberg S: Guilty conscience: motivating
pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral
emotions. Climatic Change 2015, 130:439–452, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-014-1278-x.
35. Adams I, Hurst K, Sintov N: Experienced guilt, but not pride,
mediates the effect of feedback on pro-environmental
behavior. J Environ Psychol 2020, 71:101476, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101476.
36. Ferguson MA, Branscombe NR: Collective guilt mediates the
effect of beliefs about climate change on willingness to
engage in mitigation behavior. J Environ Psychol 2010, 30:
135–142.
37. Harth NS, Leach CW, Kessler T: Guilt, anger, and pride about
in-group environmental behaviour: different emotions predict
distinct intentions. J Environ Psychol 2013, 34:18–26.
38. Schneider CR, Zaval L, Weber EU, Markowitz EM: The influence
of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision
making. PloS One 2017, 12, https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0188781.
39. Bissing-Olson MJ, Fielding KS, Iyer A: Experiences of pride, not
guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-
environmental descriptive norms are more positive. J Environ
Psychol 2016, 45:145–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2016.01.001.
40. Koenig-Lewis N, Palmer A, Dermody J, Urbye A: Consumers’
evaluations of ecological packaging – rational and emotional
approaches. J Environ Psychol 2014, 37:94–105, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.009.
41. Thomas EF, McGarty C, Mavor K: Group interaction as the
crucible of social identity formation: a glimpse at the foun-
dations of social identities for collective action. Group Pro-
cess Intergr Relat 2016, 19:137–151, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368430215612217.
42. Cianconi P, Betrò S, Janiri L: The impact of climate change on
* 28–30.
mental health: a systematic descriptive review. Front
Psychiatr 2020, 6:74, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074.
This review summarizes the emerging literature on climate change and
mental health and highlights how climate change can directly and
indirectly undermine physical and mental health.
43. Helm Sabrina V, Pollitt Amanda, Barnett Melissa A,
* Curran Melissa A, Craig Zelieann R: Differentiating environ-
mental concern in the context of psychological adaption to
climate change. Global Environ Change 2018, 48:158–167,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.012.
This study differentiates between three different forms of environmental
concerns: egoistic, altruistic and biospheric. Using a large online
Current Opinion in Psychology 2021, 42:140–144
survey, the authors found unique patterns of psychological adaptation
for each type of concern. Whereas biospheric concern was dominant in
affecting psychological adaptation, ecological concern was linked to
depressive symptoms and pro-environmental behaviors.
44. Rothschild Zachary K, Keefer Lucas A: A cleansing fire: moral
outrage alleviates guilt and buffers threats to one’s moral
identity. Motiv Emot 2017, 41:209–229, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-017-9601-2.
45. Täuber S, van Zomeren M, Kutlaca M: Should the moral core of
climate issues be emphasized or downplayed in public
discourse? Three ways to successfully manage the double-
edged sword of moral communication. Climatic Change 2015,
130:453–464. https://doi.org/(...)07/s10584-014-1200-6.
46. Fredrickson BL, Branigan C: Positive emotions broaden the
scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognit
Emot 2005, 19:313–332, https://doi.org/10.1080/
02699930441000238.
47. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Grandpierre Z: Mindfulness in nature
enhances connectedness and mood. Ecopsychology 2019, 12:
81–91, https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0061.
48. Coelho F, Pereira M, Cruz L, Simões P, Barata E: Affect and the
adoption of pro-environmental behaviour: a structural model.
J Environ Psychol 2017, 54:127–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2017.10.008.
49. Kolling C, de Medeiros JF, Ribeiro JLD, Onwezen M, Marcon A:
* Emotions and the purchase decision processes of green
products: an exploratory study with consumption emotions
set scale (CES). In Industrial engineering and operations man-
agement. IJCIEOM. Springer proceedings in mathematics & sta-
tistics. Edited by Thomé AMT, Barbastefano RG, Scavarda LF,
dos Reis JCG, Amorim MPC, vol. 337. Cham: Springer; 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56920-4_46.
This study examined emotional factors and their influence on green
product purchases. The results suggest that positive emotions—such
as sympathy, pride, and joy—triggered green product purchases.
50. van der Linden S: Warm glow is associated with low but not
high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nature Sustain 2018, 1:
51. van Zomeren M, Pauls IL, Cohen-Chen S: Is hope good for
motivating collective action in the context of climate change?
Differentiating hope’s emotion- and problem-focused coping
functions. Global Environ Change 2019, 58:101915, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.04.003.
52. Bury SM, Wenzel M, Woodyatt L: Against the odds: hope as an
antecedent of support for climate change action. Br J Soc
Psychol 2020, 59:289–310, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12343.
www.sciencedirect.com