Which coping strategies reduce negative climate emotions when participants get to choose their preferred strategy? A quasi-experimental investigation of meaning- emotion- and problem-focused coping

Coping with negative climate emotions is increasingly studied, yet much of the evidence is cross-sectional. Moreover, existing experimental paradigms typically assign participants to a regulation strategy, whereas in everyday life people choose how they want to cope. In this preregistered online study (N=320), we induced negative climate emotions with a short film clip and then allowed participants to choose one of three coping strategies: emotion-focused coping (EFC; acceptance-based audio guidance), meaning-focused coping (MFC; meaning/hope-based audio guidance), or problem-focused coping (PFC) operationalized as a consequential pro-environmental behavior task. Negative affect was assessed at baseline, post-induction, and post-coping, and trait climate distress and climate impairment were measured to capture individual differences. Preregistered analyses tested whether negative affect decreased after coping, whether changes differed by coping choice, and whether individual and collective environmental efficacy predicted selection of PFC. Results showed that EFC, MFC, and PFC were each associated with reduced negative affect from post-induction to post-coping, while between-strategy differences were small. Environmental efficacy was not a reliable predictor of selecting PFC in preregistered models. In exploratory models, climate distress was associated with stronger reductions in negative affect after coping and climate impairment predicted greater odds of choosing EFC or MFC over PFC.