IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p3815-d1640882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Impacts of Climate Anxiety on Financial Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Zac Coates

    (School of Psychological Science, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia)

  • Scott Brown

    (School of Psychological Science, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia)

  • Michelle Kelly

    (School of Psychological Science, College of Engineering, Science and Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia)

Abstract

Previous studies have identified harmful social, physical and mental impacts due to climate change. Anxiety due to climate change or “climate anxiety” may be an adaptive reasonable response to a real threat; however, it may also be associated with considerable functional impairment of associated behaviours. In this study, we examined the relationship between climate anxiety and pro-environment financial decisions. Discrete choice experiments are required to make various choices with different attributes and levels, allowing us to understand the importance of different factors within these choices. We found that a moderate level of climate anxiety may be optimal for making pro-environmental choices, with this group having significantly higher consideration of sustainable investment options than participants in the low or high climate anxiety groups. We also found that, for participants with moderate levels of climate anxiety, there was no significant difference in the importance of financially focused attributes (risk, return on investment or length of investment) and sustainability, indicating it as a primary consideration in these decisions. Using a novel experimental approach to this problem, these findings are significant as they allow us to further examine choices to understand not only frequency of pro-environmental behaviours, but trade-offs participants made. This study provides evidence for the use of DCE when examining pro-environment behaviours, as they may be more robust to socially desirable response bias, compared to self-report survey measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Zac Coates & Scott Brown & Michelle Kelly, 2025. "Understanding the Impacts of Climate Anxiety on Financial Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3815-:d:1640882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3815/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3815/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    4. Kenneth L. Fisher & Meir Statman, 2000. "Investor Sentiment and Stock Returns," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 16-23, March.
    5. Thomas Li-Ping Tang, 2016. "Theory of Monetary Intelligence: Money Attitudes—Religious Values, Making Money, Making Ethical Decisions, and Making the Grade," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 583-603, February.
    6. Marlis C. Wullenkord & Josephine Tröger & Karen R. S. Hamann & Laura S. Loy & Gerhard Reese, 2021. "Anxiety and climate change: a validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Jesse Dillard & Darrell Brown & R. Scott Marshall, 2005. "An environmentally enlightened accounting," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 77-101, March.
    8. Gunnar Friede & Timo Busch & Alexander Bassen, 2015. "ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 210-233, October.
    9. Meir Statman, 2000. "Socially Responsible Mutual Funds (corrected)," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 30-39, May.
    10. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2007. "Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 69-78.
    11. Marie Lisa Kapeller & Georg Jäger, 2020. "Threat and Anxiety in the Climate Debate—An Agent-Based Model to Investigate Climate Scepticism and Pro-Environmental Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. María D. López-Rodríguez & Antonia Lozano-Díaz & Rubén Rodríguez-Puertas & Juan S. Fernández-Prados, 2025. "Generational Climate Engagement in Liquid Modernity: Eco-Anxiety, Environmental Activism and Pro-Environmental Behavior Among Older Adults in Spain," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zac Coates & Michelle Kelly & Scott Brown, 2024. "The Relationship between Climate Anxiety and Pro-Environment Behaviours," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    3. Satish Kumar & Dipasha Sharma & Sandeep Rao & Weng Marc Lim & Sachin Kumar Mangla, 2025. "Past, present, and future of sustainable finance: insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 345(2), pages 1061-1104, February.
    4. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, Eun-Young, 2017. "Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 243-249.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Gao, Yumeng & Hoepner, Andreas G.F. & Prokopczuk, Marcel & Rouxelin, Florent & Wuersig, Christoph, 2025. "Responsible investing: Upside potential and downside protection?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    13. Matthew Quaife & Peter Vickerman & Shanthi Manian & Robyn Eakle & Maria A. Cabrera‐Escobar & Sinead Delany‐Moretlwe & Fern Terris‐Prestholt, 2018. "The effect of HIV prevention products on incentives to supply condomless commercial sex among female sex workers in South Africa," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1550-1566, October.
    14. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    15. Linni Wilson & E Shirley Elizabeth, 2025. "Psychological Traits in Option Trading Decisions within the SDG Framework," The Review of Finance and Banking, Academia de Studii Economice din Bucuresti, Romania / Facultatea de Finante, Asigurari, Banci si Burse de Valori / Catedra de Finante, vol. 17(1), pages 55-70, June.
    16. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    17. Aleksandra Torbica & Carla Rognoni & Rosanna Tarricone, 2021. "Investigating Patients’ Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Shimeng Liu & Shunping Li & Yujia Li & Haipeng Wang & Jingjing Zhao & Gang Chen, 2019. "Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike & van Ooijen, Raun, 2022. "Preferences for in-kind and in-cash home care insurance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3815-:d:1640882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.