Is Climate Change Worry Fostering Young Italian Adults’ Psychological Distress? An Italian Exploratory Study on the Mediation Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty and Future Anxiety

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and timely manuscript. I agreed to evaluate the manuscript narrowly on the merits of its survey data collection and mediation model analysis given that psychological concepts such as distress are outside my expertise. Accordingly, I responded with "Not applicable" or "No Answer" to items that required knowledge about the substantive topic at hand (items such as whether the introduction contained sufficient background and appropriate references, as well as rating the manuscript's originality and significance).  With that said, the models and their accompanying text and figures appeared both elegant and cogent, with appropriate conclusions drawn.  If published, this could be the sort of article that I might point graduate students to for instructional purposes per mediation analysis.

By the way, Cohen's d is misspelled in Line 315.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It was quite good.

Author Response

Comments 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and timely manuscript. I agreed to evaluate the manuscript narrowly on the merits of its survey data collection and mediation model analysis given that psychological concepts such as distress are outside my expertise. Accordingly, I responded with "Not applicable" or "No Answer" to items that required knowledge about the substantive topic at hand (items such as whether the introduction contained sufficient background and appropriate references, as well as rating the manuscript's originality and significance).  With that said, the models and their accompanying text and figures appeared both elegant and cogent, with appropriate conclusions drawn. If published, this could be the sort of article that I might point graduate students to for instructional purposes per mediation analysis.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our work and for appreciating its methodological structure. It would be great for us if our work could be used for didactic purposes. Thank you very much.

Comments 2: By the way, Cohen's d is misspelled in Line 315.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we have fixed the typo.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments 3: It was quite good.

Response 3: We thank you for your feedback. English has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review studies the relationship between Climate Change Worry and Psychological Distress by considering the mediating effect played by Intolerance of Uncertainty and Future Anxiety among 283 Italian young adults from Campania in Italy. The results showed high levels of Psychological Distress among young adults, with women showing higher levels of Psychological Distress due to their greater involvement in environmental issues. The main weakness of the paper is the non-disclosure or the non-inclusion income/economic criteria of the participation; or diversifying the sample on income/occupation of participants as diverse economic group could produce, probably, different result.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper under review studies the relationship between Climate Change Worry and Psychological Distress by considering the mediating effect played by Intolerance of Uncertainty and Future Anxiety among 283 Italian young adults from Campania in Italy. The results showed high levels of Psychological Distress among young adults, with women showing higher levels of Psychological Distress due to their greater involvement in environmental issues. The main weakness of the paper is the non-disclosure or the non-inclusion income/economic criteria of the participation; or diversifying the sample on income/occupation of participants as diverse economic group could produce, probably, different result.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. In this paper, we did not focus on the socio-demographic variable "income", focusing on the environmental emotion of eco-worry and its relationship with mental health and the mediating variables of the study.  The variable you reported could be very useful in future studies that will target a more diverse sample in terms of age and socio-economic characteristics. This information has been added in paragraph 4.1.

On the other hand, the occupation variable was considered in the present study. Most of the participants are university students and working students (85.1%). This variable was analyzed in Anova but, as added in the manuscript, was not significant. The absence of homogeneity between the different subgroups regarding "occupation" is reported as a limitation of the study in the dedicated section (paragraph 4.1).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic covered in the paper is very relevant and timely. Paper is written in appropriate manner, well-structured and providing valuable insights.

Nevertheless, I would like to make a few comments that may be helpful to the authors in improving the paper.

 

·        I would suggest clearly formulating the hypotheses in one sentence, separating them from the argumentation (lines 206-222)

·        Figure 1. Hypothesized Serial Mediation Model: You have formulated hypotheses H1-H4. However, in the figure, you use a1, b1, d21, etc. These abbreviations are not explained in the text in relation to the hypotheses. I would suggest thinking about how the hypotheses H1-H4 in Figure 1. could be presented. Perhaps a more precise formulation of the hypotheses (see note No. 1) would solve the issue. Now there is a gap  (no explanation in the text) between H1-H4 and a1, b1, d21, etc. Maybe it would be appropriate to formulate a zero hypothesis (H0)?

 

·        Lines 236 -261. Please justify the sample. To what extent does the research sample allow for generalization of the results (for Italy or only for Campania). It is formally written, but there is a lack of clarity from which set (Italy or Campania?) the sample is calculated.

Author Response

The topic covered in the paper is very relevant and timely. Paper is written in appropriate manner, well-structured and providing valuable insights.

Thank you for your positive feedback.

Nevertheless, I would like to make a few comments that may be helpful to the authors in improving the paper.

Comments 1:  I would suggest clearly formulating the hypotheses in one sentence, separating them from the argumentation (lines 206-222)

Response 1: This has been changed accordingly. Specifically, the hypotheses were formulated in bullet points (paragraph 1.4.).

Comments 2:  Figure 1. Hypothesized Serial Mediation Model: You have formulated hypotheses H1-H4. However, in the figure, you use a1, b1, d21, etc. These abbreviations are not explained in the text in relation to the hypotheses. I would suggest thinking about how the hypotheses H1-H4 in Figure 1. could be presented. Perhaps a more precise formulation of the hypotheses (see note No. 1) would solve the issue. Now there is a gap (no explanation in the text) between H1-H4 and a1, b1, d21, etc. Maybe it would be appropriate to formulate a zero hypothesis (H0)?

Response 2: Section 1.4 has been modified according to the suggestions. Specifically, Figure 1 was redesigned starting from the redefinition of the hypotheses and a1, b1, d21, etc were explained in relation to the hypotheses in the note below the figure.

Comments 3: Lines 236 -261. Please justify the sample. To what extent does the research sample allow for generalization of the results (for Italy or only for Campania). It is formally written, but there is a lack of clarity from which set (Italy or Campania?) the sample is calculated.

Response 3: The participants are young Italian adults mostly from the Italian region of Campania (Southern Italy). As reported in section 4.1, we hope that future studies will investigate the impact of psychoterratic emotions on mental health in a more homogeneous sample with participants from other Italian regions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I would like to express my gratitude to the editor for allowing me the opportunity to review this intriguing article. I found the manuscript both engaging and pertinent. It adheres to the standards of a scientific report and aligns with the journal's objectives. Concerning the critical elements of the manuscript, I offer the following suggestions for potential improvement.

1-      The introduction section should be thought of as the “visiting card” of the study, making the purpose and contribution of the investigation clear. However, in its current state, the introduction does not serve its purpose given that it is not entirely clear what this work adds to the literature, why it is essential, what is already known in general terms, and how authors intend to contribute. In particular, the introduction is unduly lengthy. It would be beneficial for the authors to consider condensing this section to more clearly delineate the study's objective and the rationale behind the research. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for the authors to present a distinct section on the literature review and the justification of hypotheses, separate from the introduction. This proposed format is widely utilized and is expected to enhance the reader's comprehension. Consequently, the existing section entitled "Aims and Hypotheses of the Study" could be renamed "Theory and Hypotheses."

2-      A thorough literature review is essential, as it allows the researcher to present a clear and concise definition of the main variables under study. Conversely, the hypotheses presented should be adequately substantiated. For example, it is insufficient for the authors to merely state that "Starting from studies on youth distress that revealed women to be more worried about Climate Change in other cultural contexts [15, 31, 71], we hypothesized that they would report higher levels of Psychological Distress than men, but also higher levels of Climate Change Worry." The authors need to present the arguments that underpin the definition of the hypotheses. Furthermore, when dividing the participants into distinct groups (men and women), this approach must be aligned with the other hypotheses. For example, it would be beneficial to ascertain whether women also exhibit elevated levels of intolerance of uncertainty and future anxiety.

3-      Regarding the "Measure and Tools" section, it is recommended that authors consider the option of providing examples of items for all scales under investigation.

4-      The study presents a robust discussion; however, the presentation of theoretical and practical implications is not aligned with the quality of the study. Accordingly, the authors are encouraged to provide a more robust presentation of the theoretical and practical implications.

 

 

Author Response

Dear authors     
I would like to express my gratitude to the editor for allowing me the opportunity to review this intriguing article. I found the manuscript both engaging and pertinent. It adheres to the standards of a scientific report and aligns with the journal's objectives.

-  Thank you for your positive feedback.

Concerning the critical elements of the manuscript, I offer the following suggestions for potential improvement.

Comments 1: The introduction section should be thought of as the “visiting card” of the study, making the purpose and contribution of the investigation clear. However, in its current state, the introduction does not serve its purpose given that it is not entirely clear what this work adds to the literature, why it is essential, what is already known in general terms, and how authors intend to contribute. In particular, the introduction is unduly lengthy. It would be beneficial for the authors to consider condensing this section to more clearly delineate the study's objective and the rationale behind the research. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for the authors to present a distinct section on the literature review and the justification of hypotheses, separate from the introduction. This proposed format is widely utilized and is expected to enhance the reader's comprehension. Consequently, the existing section entitled "Aims and Hypotheses of the Study" could be renamed "Theory and Hypotheses.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have appreciated your suggestion to divide the introduction into sub-sections and made changes that we feel more reader friendly. The contents of the introduction have been revised and reorganized but, in general, have not been modified, however, as we believe they are an appropriate background for our work. In line with what the other reviewers also suggested, we preferred to keep the hypotheses in a separate paragraph (1.4.) in which the research gaps have also been reported.

Comments 2: A thorough literature review is essential, as it allows the researcher to present a clear and concise definition of the main variables under study. Conversely, the hypotheses presented should be adequately substantiated. For example, it is insufficient for the authors to merely state that "Starting from studies on youth distress that revealed women to be more worried about Climate Change in other cultural contexts [15, 31, 71], we hypothesized that they would report higher levels of Psychological Distress than men, but also higher levels of Climate Change Worry." The authors need to present the arguments that underpin the definition of the hypotheses. Furthermore, when dividing the participants into distinct groups (men and women), this approach must be aligned with the other hypotheses. For example, it would be beneficial to ascertain whether women also exhibit elevated levels of intolerance of uncertainty and future anxiety.

Response 2: We thank you for your feedback. We do believe that a thorough revision of the literature is of the utmost importance in the construction of reliable hypotheses, even more so in studies exploring recent topics of investigation in psychological research. As we specified in our study (see e.g., paragraph 1) very few contributions have investigated the relation between psychoterratic emotions and mental health, especially in the Italian context. The measure we selected for our study - climate change worry - has been only fairly recently adapted in Italian (2022) and its original version is recent as well (2021). Thus, while the hypothesis concerning female psychological distress has a longstanding scholarly tradition which is firmly anchored in more structured theoretical models and empirical investigations (see paragraphs 1 and 4), this does not hold true for hypotheses concerning the relationship between climate change worry and psychological distress. These, in fact, stem from recent psychological considerations and empirical investigations, especially in our research context. Apart from the reported contributions, to our knowledge, no structured theoretical models aimed to test the relation between psychoterratic emotions and mental health (and, even more so, the different indirect ways in which psychoterratic emotions may influence young adults' distress, i.e., the focus of our study) have been devised yet. At the same time, we formulated hypotheses based on a solid literature and solid theoretical models, proved by empirical studies such as 'The Uncertainty and Anticipation Model of Anxiety' (Grupe and Nirschke, 2013) and research derived from it, which substantiated H4. We firmly believe that 'exploratory' studies like ours - as expressed in the article title - may contribute to the existing literature and to the construction of solid theoretical models which, over time, will be corroborated by more detailed research on the topic of our work. 

Furthermore, we wish to highlight that gender differences have been considered for all the psychological variables of the study (see paragraph 3.2). We realized, however, that we failed to report on the non-significance of gender differences concerning the variable 'Intolerance of Uncertainty'. We have taken care of this in paragraph 3.2. Precisely these findings have guided the inclusion of gender as a control variable for subsequent parallel and serial mediation models. We have also added the gender variable in Figure 1, to graphically represent our H1.

Comments 3: Regarding the "Measure and Tools" section, it is recommended that authors consider the option of providing examples of items for all scales under investigation.

Response 3:  This has been added.

Comments 4: The study presents a robust discussion; however, the presentation of theoretical and practical implications is not aligned with the quality of the study. Accordingly, the authors are encouraged to provide a more robust presentation of the theoretical and practical implications.

Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. Paragraph 4. has been updated and enriched with what was requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf