1) Have any data been collected for this study already? No, no data have been collected for this study yet.
2) What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study? A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey is planned in a sample of climate-activists and non-activists (convenience sample) to investigate (1) negative climate emotions (grief, anxiety, guilt, anger, hopelessness) and possibly associated constructs (e.g., intolerance of uncertainty) as well as (2) an experimental study on the effectiveness of emotion regulation with different emotion regulation (ER) strategies (reappraisal, expressive suppression, observation) during the presentation of climate-relevant images.
Re (1) The following research questions will be investigated:
(1a) How do activists and non-activists differ in the intensity of climate emotions?
(1b) How are negative affect (depressiveness and general anxiety) and intolerance of uncertainty related to different climate emotions and does this relationship differ between groups?
(1c) Does intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between climate anxiety and negative affect?
(1d) How is pro-environmental behavior associated with climate emotions?
Re (2) The following research questions will be investigated:
(2) We will experimentally test whether both groups differ in the effectiveness (as assessed by differences in valence and arousal ratings) of the three ER-strategies during the presentation of climate-relevant images.
3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured. - Climate emotions: self-constructed Climate-Emotions-Questionnaire (based on Agoston et al., 2022; Doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2022.100441), 25 items (5 per emotion category, i.e., grief, anxiety, guilt, anger, hopelessness).
- Pro environmental behavior: 10 self-developed items, adapted from Stanley et al. (2021).
- Trait emotion regulation: ERQ - Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, 8 items (Abler & Kessler, 2011), adapted for climate change
- Depressiveness (PHQ-2) & Anxiety (GAD-2): PHQ-4 - Patient Health Questionnaire-4, 4 items (Löwe et al., 2010),
- Intolerance of uncertainty: the IUS-12 - Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12, 12 items (Carleton et al., 2007),
Re (2)
- Differences in (a) valence (from 1 = pleasant to 9 = unpleasant) and (b) arousal (from 1 = exited to 9 = calm) before and after application of ER-strategy during picture viewing, as assessed by the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) scale (Lang, 1980).
- Effort of applying ER-strategy (from 1 = very difficult to 5 = very easy)
4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to? Procedures are the same for all participants. Conditions do not differ. Order of climate change images is randomized.
Procedure of (2): Effectiveness of emotion regulation when confronted with pictures of climate change: emotion induction, based on the paradigm by Schnabel et al. (2022; doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000001118). Participants first receive an explanation of three emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal, expressive suppression, observation) by a short explanatory video and can then practice these. Afterwards, images of negative valence from the AFFECTIVE CLIMATE IMAGES DATABASE (Lehman et al., 2019; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00960) are presented, which depict negative consequences of climate change (e.g., destruction of nature). Participants view the image for 4 seconds, then rate how good or bad, or how physically activated they feel (valence and arousal). The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) scale (Lang, 1994; doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9) is used for this purpose. Subsequently, one of the three emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal, suppression, observation) is announced, the order is randomized. The same picture is presented again for 7 seconds and the respective ER-strategy should be applied. Afterwards, the picture is rated again in terms of valence and arousal, so that the effectiveness of the emotion regulation strategy can be assessed from the difference between the two timepoints of ratings. In addition, after each trial, participants rate the difficulty of implementing the strategy (effort on a 5-point scale from 1 Very easy to 5 Very difficult. A total of 24 trials will be conducted, each strategy will be used 8 times. Pictures and ER-strategy are ordered randomly.
5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis. The following analyses will be conducted (number of research question in brackets):
(1) Psychometric validation of climate emotion questionnaire: we will assess the internal consistency (McDonald's Omega, ω) of the scales and inspect item characteristics (e.g., distribution). The factorial structure of the questionnaire will be tested using exploratory factor analysis.
(1a) Analysis of group differences in individual climate emotions via t-tests.
(1b, c) Relationship of negative climate emotions to negative affectivity (depressiveness & general anxiety), intolerance of uncertainty, pro-environmental behavior and demographics via bivariate correlations and multiple regression models (including moderation analysis, adjusting for possible covariates).
(2) Group differences in the effectiveness of emotion regulation in the climate context: mixed ANOVA with group (activists vs. non-activists), timing (pre- and post-ER), and strategy (suppression vs. reappraisal) factors. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction for multiple testing will be used to explore main and interaction effects.
6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations. Exclusion/ separate analysis of data from individuals who do not believe in human-made climate change. Exclusion of individuals from whom a complete data set is not available. Only complete data sets are analyzed.
Outliers are considered exploratorily. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted after removing possible outliers (+/- 3 SD in climate emotions/valence arousal ratings).
7) How many observations will be collected or what will determine sample size? No need to justify decision, but be precise about exactly how the number will be determined. The planned sample size was determined as follows:
"Climate Emotions" questionnaire construction: MacCallum et al. (1999) recommend a minimum sample size of 100 for the planned exploratory factor analysis as part of the questionnaire construction. Following Kass and Tinsley's (1979) rule of thumb, 5 to 10 cases per variable would be recommended.
For the group comparison (activists vs. nonactivists), a power analysis on the planned t-tests using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) with a mean expected effect size of d = .50 and a power of .80, two-tailed testing (α = .05) revealed a necessary sample size of 128 subjects.
The power analysis for the planned mixed ANOVA, with a small to moderate effect size of η²p = 0.05 and a power of .8, resulted in a sample size of 152 subjects to obtain a significant interaction effect with 2 groups and 2 measurements (α = .05).
As a result, a sample size of at least 150 participants consisting of climate activists and non-activists is targeted. Recruitment will be primarily through digital channels (email distribution lists, social networks, forums) over a 2-month period or until planned sample size is reached. The minimum age for taking part in this study is 16 years.
8) Anything else you would like to pre-register? (e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?) Exploratory analyses will be aimed at, for example, group differences in subsidiary questionnaires (e.g., depressiveness (PHQ-2), general anxiety (GAD-2), pro environmental behavior (PEB) and emotion regulation (ERQ)).
Given differences in ERQ, one could use general preference for emotion regulation strategy as a covariate. Furthermore, one could compare values in the ERQ with the experimental results and consider their relationship to the PEB.
Differences in psychological constructs (intolerance of uncertainty, negative affectivity, climate emotions, etc.) regarding demographic characteristics will be examined. In addition, differences in the effectiveness of ER-strategies regarding demographic variables and psychological constructs will be investigated.
Finally, it will be explored whether the three emotion regulation strategies differ in their effectiveness. It is assumed that reappraisal is more effective than observation or suppression.
