In an era where the climate crisis dominates global discourse, understanding the psychological mechanisms underpinning public support for environmental policies is paramount. Recent groundbreaking research from Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) delves into the nuanced emotional responses that influence collective action on climate change. This pioneering study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, uncovers the complex interplay between incidental emotions—those felt in the moment independent of climate considerations—and the willingness to endorse climate mitigation policies. With a robust sample of 418 UK participants, the findings dissect the divergent roles of fear and dread, shedding light on how these closely related yet fundamentally different emotions shape policy support.
The investigation marks a significant departure from prior studies primarily focused on direct emotional reactions to climate change itself, such as eco-anxiety. Instead, this research probes how everyday, incidental emotions—whether or not linked explicitly to climate issues—correlate with an individual’s belief in anthropogenic climate change and their propensity to support policies aimed at combating it. The emotional spectrum evaluated encompassed ten distinct states, including fear, anger, sadness, guilt, and the less commonly studied dread, providing a comprehensive emotional landscape in relation to environmental attitudes.
Central to the study’s revelations is the critical distinction between fear and dread. Fear, characterized by its role as a manageable emotional response, was found to positively correlate with greater backing for climate policies. This includes support for measures such as increasing taxes on airlines to offset carbon emissions, investing in green jobs and businesses, and raising levies on fossil fuels. The motivational capacity of fear, a moderate and actionable emotion, appears to galvanize the public toward endorsing proactive climate strategies.
Conversely, dread—defined as an intense, overwhelming fear laced with a pervasive sense of inevitability and powerlessness—painted a starkly opposite picture. Participants experiencing dread were less likely to support climate initiatives. This debilitating form of fear likely engenders a cognitive paralysis, where individuals feel that the environmental crisis is insurmountable and that policy efforts are doomed to fail. Such emotional overwhelm can lead to disengagement, a phenomenon aligning with the psychological concept of learned helplessness, wherein perceived futility dismantles motivation to act.
These findings resonate with the theory of an “inverted-U” relationship between fear intensity and behavioral engagement. According to this framework, low levels of fear fail to stimulate action, moderate fear serves as a catalyst for engagement, while excessive fear — exemplified by dread — suppresses involvement and leads to withdrawal from proactive behavior. This nuanced understanding refines prevailing views on climate communication, emphasizing the importance of calibrated emotional messaging that encourages constructive fear without tipping into dread.
Interestingly, the study revealed that belief in climate change among UK participants was already markedly high, with average scores indicating broad public consensus on humanity’s role in driving global warming and recognizing the climate emergency. Despite this widespread acceptance, emotional states did not predict the strength of belief, suggesting that while conviction about climate change is important, separate emotional processes govern the willingness to support specific policy measures.
The role of gender emerged as another critical variable. Female participants reported significantly stronger belief in climate change and higher levels of policy support than their male counterparts. This gender differential echoes prior literature pointing to variations in environmental concern and risk perception, with women generally exhibiting heightened awareness and engagement on ecological issues. The psychological underpinnings behind these disparities warrant further investigation, particularly concerning how emotion regulation and socialization differentially shape climate attitudes across genders.
Dr. Sarah Gradidge, the study’s lead author and Lecturer in Psychology at ARU, highlights the novelty of examining incidental emotions in this context. Traditionally, climate research has concentrated on emotions directly elicited by exposure to climate information or conditions. This study broadens the lens, suggesting that everyday emotional experiences—even those unrelated to climate considerations—can significantly influence public support for environmental policies, thereby underscoring the importance of holistic psychological approaches in climate communication strategies.
Importantly, the researchers caution against messaging strategies that evoke overwhelming dread, as such approaches may backfire by instilling a sense of helplessness and disengagement. Instead, fostering manageable levels of fear appears to be a more effective tactic for motivating societal action. This insight has profound implications for policymakers, environmental advocates, and science communicators seeking to maximize public participation in climate solutions without exacerbating emotional fatigue or anxiety.
Moreover, the study’s methodological rigor, including its broad emotion assessment and policy support metrics, enhances the reliability and applicability of its conclusions across diverse demographic and psychosocial contexts. Such empirical evidence is invaluable as governments worldwide grapple with designing policies that not only address ecological imperatives but also garner democratic legitimacy and popular backing.
Ultimately, this research contributes a critical psychological dimension to climate change discourse, demonstrating that the emotional states individuals inhabit—beyond their cognitive beliefs—play a pivotal role in driving or stalling climate action. It underscores the delicate balance communicators must navigate: invoking sufficient concern to prompt engagement without overwhelming audiences into paralysis. As the climate crisis accelerates, leveraging these insights could be instrumental in unlocking broader societal commitment to sustainable transformation.
By illuminating the emotional pathways influencing climate policy support, this study offers a vital roadmap for crafting narratives and interventions that resonate psychologically and galvanize collective action. In a world urgently needing both awareness and mobilization, understanding the difference between fear that motivates and dread that stalls could prove decisive in shaping the trajectory of global climate governance.
Subject of Research: The influence of incidental emotional states on belief in climate change and support for climate policies.
Article Title: Fear motivates and dread stalls: the role of emotions in climate support
News Publication Date: 12-Feb-2026
Web References:
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1667470
Keywords:
Climate change, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, public policy, climate policy, environmental policy, emotions, fear, personality psychology, society, psychological experiments, behavioral psychology
