Environmental identity and subsequent eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger among Filipino emerging adults: evidence from a two-wave longitudinal study

Climate emotions have received increasing scholarly attention because of their implications for mental health, environmental engagement, and adaptation to environmental change. However, research has focused primarily on the consequences of climate emotions, whereas comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding the psychological characteristics prospectively associated with these emotional responses. Environmental identity, defined as the incorporation of nature into one’s self-concept, may represent an important psychological foundation of climate emotions because incorporating nature into one’s self-concept may increase the identity relevance of environmental degradation. The present study examined the prospective associations between environmental identity and three climate emotions: eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger among university-attending Filipino emerging adults recruited from a private university. Using a two-wave longitudinal design, 266 participants completed measures of environmental identity at Time 1 and climate emotions two weeks later. Structural equation modeling indicated that environmental identity was positively associated with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger. The findings suggest that environmental identity is prospectively associated with multiple climate emotions, although these associations were generally modest in magnitude. More broadly, the study contributes to understanding why some individuals experience stronger emotional responses to environmental change than others while extending longitudinal evidence from a climate-vulnerable context.

Climate emotions as psychological responses to environmental degradation

Climate change and environmental degradation are increasingly recognized not only as environmental and public health challenges but also as psychological concerns. As environmental crises intensify, individuals and communities increasingly experience emotional responses to current and anticipated ecological change. Climate emotions have received growing scholarly attention as meaningful psychological responses to environmental degradation and ecological uncertainty (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021; Stanley et al., 2021). Rather than being inherently pathological, climate emotions are generally understood as adaptive responses that reflect awareness of environmental threats and concern for ecological futures (Aruta and Guinto, 2022; Coffey et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2022).

Among the most widely studied climate emotions is eco-anxiety, which refers to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral distress associated with environmental degradation and anticipated ecological harm (Hogg et al., 2021). Eco-anxiety has been linked to a variety of psychological and behavioral outcomes, including mental health, wellbeing, climate engagement, and pro-environmental behavior (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020; Owczarek et al., 2025). Researchers have also increasingly examined eco-guilt, which reflects feelings of guilt associated with one’s actual or perceived contribution to environmental problems (Ágoston et al., 2022), and eco-anger, which refers to anger and frustration directed toward environmental degradation and the actors, institutions, or systems perceived to be responsible for it (Stanley et al., 2021). Although these emotions are conceptually distinct, they frequently co-occur while representing distinct emotional responses to environmental change.

The growing literature on climate emotions has primarily focused on their consequences. Existing studies have investigated how climate emotions influence mental health, coping, environmental engagement, activism, and pro-environmental behavior (Owczarek et al., 2025; Stanley et al., 2021). Comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding the psychological characteristics that may give rise to these emotional responses. As a result, the field currently knows more about what climate emotions predict than what predicts climate emotions themselves. This imbalance is further compounded by the predominance of cross-sectional research designs, which limit understanding of the temporal ordering between psychological factors and subsequent climate emotions (Brandt et al., 2026; Innocenti et al., 2026; Watson et al., 2025). Longitudinal evidence examining potential correlates of climate emotions remains relatively scarce, limiting understanding of whether psychological characteristics precede and prospectively relate to subsequent climate emotions. Emerging longitudinal research has begun to examine the temporal stability and prospective correlates of climate emotions (Aruta et al., 2026b), although such evidence remains limited.

Environmental identity and subsequent climate emotions

One promising psychological characteristic that may be prospectively associated with climate emotions is environmental identity. Environmental identity refers to the extent to which individuals incorporate the natural environment into their self-concept and perceive themselves as interconnected with nature (Clayton, 2003). Unlike environmental concern or positive attitudes toward nature, environmental identity reflects who individuals understand themselves to be in relation to the natural world (Clayton, 2003; van der Werff et al., 2013). Contemporary identity-based perspectives similarly propose that environmental identity functions as a self-defining construct that shapes how individuals interpret environmental issues, evaluate environmental responsibilities, and respond emotionally when valued aspects of the self are perceived to be threatened (van der Werff et al., 2013; Vesely et al., 2021). From this perspective, environmental degradation may evoke stronger climate emotions among individuals with stronger environmental identities because ecological threats may be interpreted not merely as environmental problems but as threats to an aspect of the self that they value. This interpretation represents a theoretical explanation derived from identity-based perspectives rather than a mechanism directly examined in the present study. Collectively, these findings suggest that environmental identity may shape not only environmental attitudes and behaviors but also how individuals psychologically experience environmental degradation, making it a plausible psychological foundation for subsequent climate emotions.

Environmental identity has been associated with a range of environmental outcomes. Individuals with stronger environmental identities tend to report greater environmental concern, stronger pro-environmental values, and higher levels of environmentally responsible behavior (Clayton, 2003; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019). Research has also suggested that environmental identity may influence how individuals interpret environmental issues and respond to environmental threats. Because identity shapes the salience and personal significance of social and environmental issues, environmental degradation may be experienced differently depending on the extent to which nature is incorporated into one’s self-concept (Swami et al., 2026).

Identity theories suggest that emotionally significant reactions often emerge when valued aspects of the self are threatened. Individuals are more likely to experience emotional responses to events that affect identities that are central to who they are. Applied to environmental contexts, environmental degradation may be perceived as personally consequential among individuals who strongly identify with nature because environmental threats affect a valued component of their self-concept (Vesely et al., 2021; van der Werff et al., 2013). Consequently, environmental identity may function as a psychological foundation for climate emotions by increasing the personal significance of environmental change.

Despite these theoretical links, longitudinal evidence examining prospective associations between environmental identity and climate emotions remains limited. Although recent longitudinal research has begun to examine the temporal relationship between environmental identity and climate emotions, further evidence across distinct climate emotions and sociocultural contexts is needed (Aruta et al., 2026a; Jarrett et al., 2024). Understanding these prospective associations is important because it may help explain why some individuals experience stronger emotional reactions to environmental degradation than others. Examining prospective associations between environmental identity and climate emotions therefore offers an opportunity to advance understanding of the psychological correlates of climate emotions.

Environmental identity and three climate emotions

Although environmental identity may represent a common psychological foundation for climate emotions, eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger are conceptually distinct emotional responses that warrant separate theoretical consideration. Eco-anxiety reflects anticipated environmental threats, eco-guilt centers on perceived moral responsibility for environmental degradation, whereas eco-anger is directed toward external actors, institutions, or systems perceived to contribute to environmental harm. Examining these emotions separately therefore allows us to determine whether environmental identity is prospectively associated with each climate emotion, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of emotional responses to environmental degradation.

Eco-anxiety is primarily characterized by concern, uncertainty, and distress regarding anticipated environmental harms and ecological futures (Hogg et al., 2021). Individuals with stronger environmental identities may be more likely to perceive environmental threats as personally relevant because environmental degradation affects a valued component of their self-concept (Clayton, 2003; Uhl et al., 2016). Consequently, stronger environmental identities may be associated with heightened eco-anxiety as individuals become increasingly concerned about environmental futures (Aruta et al., 2026a).

Eco-guilt represents a self-conscious moral emotion that emerges when individuals perceive a discrepancy between their environmental values and their actual or perceived contribution to environmental problems (Ágoston et al., 2022). Because environmental identity often involves a sense of environmental responsibility and stewardship, individuals who strongly identify with nature may be more likely to experience guilt when confronted with environmental degradation or when reflecting on personal and collective contributions to ecological problems. Environmental identity may therefore be particularly relevant for understanding eco-guilt because both constructs are closely linked to self-evaluation and moral responsibility.

Eco-anger differs from eco-anxiety and eco-guilt in that it is typically directed toward external actors, institutions, and systems perceived to be responsible for environmental harm (Stanley et al., 2021). Individuals with stronger environmental identities may become more sensitive to environmental injustices, policy failures, and inadequate responses to environmental crises (Stanley et al., 2021). As a result, stronger environmental identities may be associated with greater eco-anger when environmental degradation is attributed to preventable human actions or institutional inaction. Recent evidence further supports distinguishing among eco-emotions rather than treating them as functionally equivalent. For example, eco-anger has shown a more consistent association with pro-environmental behavior than other eco-emotions, while the relationship between eco-emotions and pro-environmental behavior may also vary according to contextual factors such as place attachment (Bontempo et al., 2026a, 2026b).

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that environmental identity may be associated with multiple climate emotions, albeit through different psychological processes. Examining eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger simultaneously may therefore provide a more comprehensive understanding the associations between environmental identity and distinct emotional responses to environmental degradation.

Climate-vulnerable context

Understanding the antecedents of climate emotions may be particularly important in climate-vulnerable settings. Although research on climate emotions has expanded considerably, much of the existing evidence has been generated in North America, Europe, and Australia (e.g., Clayton and Karazsia, 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Hogg et al., 2021; Marczak et al., 2024; Stanley et al., 2021). Comparatively fewer studies have examined climate emotions in countries that are disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards despite often contributing less to global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Philippines provides an important context for addressing this gap. The country is consistently identified as one of the most climate-vulnerable nations in the world due to its exposure to typhoons, flooding, extreme heat, sea-level rise, and other climate-related threats. Such recurring environmental hazards may increase the psychological salience of environmental degradation because climate change is experienced not as a distant or abstract phenomenon but as a recurring feature of everyday life. Consequently, climate-vulnerable settings provide a theoretically informative context for examining whether environmental identity is prospectively associated with climate emotions, as environmental threats may be more readily integrated into individuals’ emotional experiences. These environmental challenges also have significant implications for physical health, livelihoods, displacement, and psychological wellbeing (Aruta, 2025a, 2025b).

Emerging adulthood may represent a particularly relevant developmental period for examining climate emotions. Emerging adults are increasingly exposed to information regarding environmental degradation through education, social media, and public discourse while simultaneously confronting uncertainties regarding their future (Crandon et al., 2022; Hickman et al., 2021). Previous studies have shown that younger populations often report elevated levels of climate-related concern and distress, making them an important population for understanding emotional responses to environmental change. Examining environmental identity and climate emotions among Filipino emerging adults therefore contributes to a more globally representative understanding of the psychological dimensions of environmental degradation.

Present study and hypotheses

Despite growing interest in climate emotions, important gaps remain in understanding the psychological characteristics associated with their emergence. In particular, it remains unclear whether a common identity-based psychological characteristic such as environmental identity is prospectively associated with conceptually distinct climate emotions. Eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger involve different appraisals of environmental threat, personal responsibility, and external responsibility, respectively, yet they have rarely been examined simultaneously in relation to environmental identity. Examining these distinct emotions within the same model can therefore clarify whether the relevance of environmental identity extends across multiple forms of climate-related emotional experience rather than being limited to a particular emotion.

The present study addressed these gaps by examining the prospective associations between environmental identity and three distinct climate emotions, including eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger, among Filipino emerging adults. Using a two-wave longitudinal design, we investigated whether environmental identity measured at Time 1 was associated with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger measured two weeks later. By examining the prospective associations between environmental identity and three conceptually distinct climate emotions in a climate-vulnerable context, the study contributes to a growing body of literature seeking to better understand the psychological foundations of emotional responses to environmental degradation. Although the study did not hypothesize differences in the magnitude of these associations, it also explored whether similar or different patterns of association would emerge across the three climate emotions.

Based on theoretical and empirical work linking environmental identity to environmental concern, environmental engagement, and emotional responses to environmental issues, we expected environmental identity to be positively associated with subsequent climate emotions. Specifically, we hypothesized that:

H1. Environmental identity measured at Time 1 would be positively associated with eco-anxiety measured at Time 2.

H2. Environmental identity measured at Time 1 would be positively associated with eco-guilt measured at Time 2.

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed model in the quantitative study.

H3. Environmental identity measured at Time 1 would be positively associated with eco-anger measured at Time 2.

Study design

The present study employed a two-wave longitudinal survey design to examine prospective associations between environmental identity and subsequent climate emotions among emerging adults in a climate-vulnerable context. Data were collected at two time points separated by approximately two weeks. A two-week interval was selected because the study aimed to examine prospective associations rather than long-term developmental change. This interval is sufficiently brief to reduce the likelihood of substantial changes in relatively stable psychological characteristics such as environmental identity while allowing enough time for subsequent climate emotions to be assessed at a separate measurement occasion. Similar short-interval longitudinal designs have been used in previous research examining prospective psychological associations because they help establish temporal ordering while minimizing participant attrition and recall bias. This interval is also consistent with previous short-term longitudinal studies examining prospective psychological associations (Tabligan et al., 2026). The study was based on data collected as part of an undergraduate thesis project conducted at [UNIVERSITY ANONYMIZED FOR PEER REVIEW]. Although climate emotions were measured at both waves as part of the broader project, the present study focused specifically on whether environmental identity measured at Time 1 was prospectively associated with climate emotions measured at Time 2. Accordingly, the analytical strategy was designed to examine prospective associations rather than changes in climate emotions over time.

Participants

Participants were 266 Filipino emerging adults residing in urban areas of Metro Manila, Philippines, who completed surveys at both time points. Eligibility criteria included (a) Filipino nationality, (b) residence within Metro Manila, and (c) age between 18 and 25 years. Participants were recruited through online advertisements and university-based networks. The sample was predominantly female (68.1%), and most participants identified as undergraduate students (91.4%). Participants represented multiple cities within Metro Manila, a highly urbanized region characterized by population density, environmental pollution, flooding, and exposure to climate-related hazards. The mean age of participants was 21.17 years (SD = 1.89). The sample size was determined by participant availability within the broader longitudinal research project rather than through an a priori statistical power analysis. Nevertheless, the final sample of 266 participants exceeds commonly recommended minimum sample sizes for structural equation modeling and was considered adequate for estimating the proposed model given its relatively modest complexity (Kline, 1998).

Procedures

Data collection was conducted online using Google Forms. At Time 1 (T1), participants completed measures of environmental identity, eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, eco-anger, and demographic variables. Approximately two weeks later (Time 2; T2), participants completed the climate emotion measures again. The two-week interval was selected to examine short-term prospective associations while minimizing participant attrition. Attention checks were included at both time points. Only participants who passed all quality-control checks and completed both survey waves were retained for analysis. Although the survey did not include embedded instructed-response attention check items, the dataset underwent a post hoc data quality screening before analysis. Responses were examined for indicators of inattentive responding, including invariant response patterns (e.g., selecting the same response option across all items) and other implausible or unusual response patterns that could indicate careless responding. No such cases were identified; therefore, no participants were excluded on the basis of response quality.

Measures

Environmental identity

Environmental identity was measured at T1 using the Environmental Identity Scale (Clayton et al., 2021). The scale assesses the extent to which individuals incorporate the natural environment into their self-concept and perceive themselves as connected to nature. Sample items include statements reflecting personal identification with nature and feelings of belonging within the natural world. Participants responded using a Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger environmental identity. In the present study, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α =.92).

Eco-anxiety

Eco-anxiety was assessed at T2 using the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS-13; Hogg et al., 2021). The scale measures emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and personal impact dimensions of eco-anxiety. Participants responded using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (nearly every day). Higher scores indicate greater eco-anxiety. Internal consistency in the present sample was excellent (α =.94). The Filipino version of the HEAS has previously demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and longitudinal measurement invariance (Aruta et al., 2026).

Eco-guilt

Eco-guilt was measured at T2 using the Eco-Guilt Questionnaire (EGuiQ-11; Ágoston et al., 2022). The instrument assesses feelings of guilt associated with perceived personal and collective contributions to environmental degradation. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Internal consistency was good (α =.91).

Eco-anger

Eco-anger was measured at T2 using an eight-item Eco-Anger Scale adapted by Wächtler (2024) from the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS; Hogg et al., 2021). In the adapted measure, the original HEAS items were reworded to assess anger and frustration in response to environmental degradation rather than eco-anxiety. Participants responded using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (nearly every day), with higher scores indicating greater eco-anger. Because the present study did not undertake a separate psychometric validation of the adapted measure, its use should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Nevertheless, the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency in the present sample (α =.93).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using Jeffrey’s Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) Version 0.19.3.0. Preliminary analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability analyses, and Pearson correlations among study variables. Separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted for environmental identity, eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger to examine the factor structure of each measure in the present sample. To test the hypothesized relationships, structural equation modeling (SEM) was subsequently conducted using observed composite scores rather than latent variables. Environmental identity measured at T1 was specified as an exogenous observed predictor, with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger measured at T2 specified as endogenous observed outcomes. Direct paths were estimated from environmental identity to each of the three climate emotions. Residual covariances among the climate emotions were freely estimated because eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger represent related emotional responses to environmental degradation and may share variance not accounted for by environmental identity. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Model fit was evaluated holistically across these indices rather than on the basis of a single cutoff criterion.

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted as part of a thesis project by the authors. Ethical approval was obtained through the Department of Psychology ethics review process as part of the thesis proposal evaluation and approval procedures at [De La Salle University]. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the study. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Preliminary analysis

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. Mean scores (SDs) were 5.42 (1.0) for environmental identity T1,.94 (.60) for eco-anxiety T2, 27.71 (6.59) for eco-guilt, and 1.19 (.70) for eco-anger. Environmental identity was positively associated with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger. Among the climate emotions, the strongest correlation was observed between eco-anxiety and eco-anger (r =.79, p <.001), followed by the associations between eco-guilt and eco-anger (r =.59, p <.001) and between eco-anxiety and eco-guilt (r =.54, p <.001). Examination of skewness and kurtosis values indicated no substantial departures from normality.

Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for each study measure. The environmental identity T1 measure demonstrated acceptable fit (χ² = 314.59, df = 75, p =.001, CFI =.90, TLI =.91, RMSEA =.08, SRMR =.06). The eco-anxiety T2 measure demonstrated acceptable fit (χ² = 137.74, df = 59, p =.001, CFI =.97, TLI =.96, RMSEA =.07, SRMR =.04), as did the eco-guilt T2 measure (χ² = 108.94, df = 42, p =.001, CFI =.95, TLI =.94, RMSEA =.07, SRMR =.04), after correlating the error terms of item pairs 2 and 10, and 3 and 8. Eco-anger T2 measure also showed acceptable fit (χ² = 82.13, df = 18, p =.001, CFI =.96, TLI =.94, RMSEA =.08, SRMR =.04), after correlating the error terms of item pairs 1 and 2, and 7 and 8.

Main analysis

A structural equation model was conducted to examine the prospective associations between environmental identity measured at Time 1 and climate emotions measured at Time 2. The model demonstrated acceptable overall fit to the data (χ² = 108, df = 44, p <.001, CFI =.91, TLI =.92, RMSEA =.07, SRMR =.07). The final model is presented in Figure 2

Environmental identity was positively associated with all three climate emotions. Specifically, environmental identity was associated with higher levels of eco-anxiety (β =.22, SE =.06, z = 3.95, p <.001, 95% CI [.11,.33]), eco-guilt (β =.38, SE =.05, z = 7.05, p <.001, 95% CI [.27,.48]), and eco-anger (β =.26, SE =.06, z = 4.67, p <.001, 95% CI [.15,.37]). The residuals of the three climate emotions were also positively correlated: eco-anxiety with eco-guilt (.31), eco-anxiety with eco-anger (.27), and eco-guilt with eco-anger (.49).

Exploratory inspection of the standardized path coefficients indicated that the association was numerically largest for eco-guilt, followed by eco-anger and eco-anxiety. Because formal statistical comparisons among the path coefficients were not conducted, these differences should be interpreted descriptively rather than inferentially. Environmental identity explained 14.2% of the variance in eco-guilt, 6.7% of the variance in eco-anger, and 4.8% of the variance in eco-anxiety, indicating modest explanatory power overall.

Overall, the findings suggest that individuals who more strongly incorporated nature into their self-concept reported higher levels of climate-related emotional responses two weeks later, particularly feelings of guilt regarding environmental degradation.

Summary of findings

The present study examined the prospective associations between environmental identity and three climate emotions among Filipino emerging adults using a two-wave longitudinal design. Consistent with our hypotheses, environmental identity measured at Time 1 was positively associated with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger measured two weeks later. However, the modest proportions of explained variance indicate that environmental identity accounts for only a limited portion of individual differences in these climate emotions, suggesting that other psychological and contextual factors are also likely involved. These findings extend the growing literature on climate emotions by demonstrating prospective associations between environmental identity and subsequent emotional responses to environmental degradation. More broadly, the findings suggest that individuals who incorporate nature into their self-concept may experience stronger climate emotions because environmental change becomes increasingly relevant to their sense of self.

Environmental identity and subsequent climate emotions

The present findings extend the growing literature on climate emotions by demonstrating prospective associations between environmental identity and subsequent eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger. Previous research has predominantly focused on the consequences of climate emotions, including environmental engagement, pro-environmental behavior, and mental health outcomes (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020; Stanley et al., 2021; Owczarek et al., 2024), whereas comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding the psychological characteristics that are prospectively associated with these emotional responses. By demonstrating that environmental identity measured at Time 1 was positively associated with three distinct climate emotions measured two weeks later, the present study extends the predominantly cross-sectional literature and provides preliminary longitudinal evidence of prospective associations between environmental identity and subsequent climate emotions. The present findings are broadly consistent with previous empirical research linking stronger environmental identification and related forms of nature connectedness with heightened emotional responsiveness to environmental threats (Sierra-Barón et al., 2023). They also extend recent longitudinal evidence on the temporal stability and prospective correlates of climate emotions by showing that environmental identity assessed at an earlier time point was positively associated with three distinct climate emotions at a subsequent assessment (Aruta et al., 2026). Importantly, the associations observed across eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger suggest that the prospective relevance of environmental identity may extend beyond a single climate emotion.

The findings are consistent with theoretical perspectives suggesting that environmental identity may increase the personal relevance of environmental degradation (Clayton, 2003; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019). However, because personal relevance was not directly measured, this interpretation should be regarded as a plausible theoretical explanation rather than an empirically demonstrated mechanism. Environmental identity reflects more than positive attitudes toward nature or environmental concern; rather, it represents the incorporation of the natural environment into one’s self-concept (Clayton, 2003). Consequently, environmental degradation may be experienced not merely as an external ecological problem but as a threat to an aspect of the self. Identity-based perspectives propose that emotionally significant responses are more likely to emerge when valued identities are challenged because such events are interpreted as personally consequential (Ellemers et al., 2002; Clayton, 2003). One possibility is that individuals with stronger environmental identities are more emotionally responsive to environmental degradation because ecological threats may affect something they perceive as integral to who they are.

Importantly, environmental identity demonstrated consistent prospective associations across all three climate emotions despite their conceptual differences. This pattern suggests that environmental identity may not simply heighten generalized environmental concern but may instead provide a common psychological foundation from which multiple climate emotions emerge. Although eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger differ theoretically in their emotional focus and underlying appraisals (Hogg et al., 2021; Ágoston et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2021), the strong correlations observed among them, particularly between eco-anxiety and eco-anger, indicate substantial empirical overlap. These associations warrant caution in treating the emotions as fully distinct constructs and highlight the need for future research to directly examine their discriminant validity. One possible explanation is that individuals who strongly identify with nature may become more emotionally attuned to environmental degradation because ecological change is perceived as personally relevant, morally significant, and consequential for the future. However, future research should directly examine these proposed psychological processes.

These findings also contribute to the broader environmental identity literature, which has traditionally emphasized the role of identity in shaping environmental values, attitudes, and pro-environmental behavior (Clayton, 2003; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; van der Werff et al., 2013). The present study suggests that environmental identity may be relevant not only to how individuals behave toward the environment but also to how they emotionally respond to environmental change. In other words, environmental identity may represent one psychological characteristic associated with individual differences in emotional responses to environmental change. By demonstrating prospective associations between environmental identity and climate emotions, the present findings bridge two previously parallel lines of inquiry: environmental identity research, which has largely focused on behavioral outcomes, and climate emotions research, which has primarily examined the consequences rather than the origins of emotional responses to environmental degradation.

Although the present study employed a two-wave longitudinal design, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of prospective associations rather than causal relationships. Because baseline climate emotions were not included in the structural model, the study does not establish changes in climate emotions over time. Nevertheless, by demonstrating that environmental identity was measured prior to the subsequent assessment of climate emotions, the findings advance the literature beyond the predominantly cross-sectional evidence currently available and provide a foundation for future longitudinal research examining the psychological mechanisms through which environmental identity contributes to emotional responses to environmental degradation.

Environmental identity and eco-guilt

Whereas eco-anxiety primarily reflects anticipatory concern and distress regarding present and future environmental threats (Hogg et al., 2021), and eco-anger reflects frustration toward individuals, institutions, or systems perceived to be responsible for environmental harm (Stanley et al., 2021), eco-guilt is fundamentally rooted in self-evaluation and perceived moral responsibility (Ágoston et al., 2022). Our findings suggest that incorporating nature into one’s self-concept may strengthen emotional responses that involve evaluating one’s own role, obligations, and accountability in relation to environmental problems.

This interpretation is consistent with Clayton’s (2003) conceptualization of environmental identity as a component of the self that encompasses values, attachment, and a sense of responsibility toward the natural environment. Environmental identity does not simply reflect concern for nature but represents the extent to which individuals perceive the natural world as part of who they are. One possible explanation is that environmental degradation may activate self-evaluative processes among individuals for whom environmental values are central to their identity. Such individuals may be more likely to experience guilt when they perceive inconsistencies between their environmental values and their own behaviors, lifestyles, or participation in broader systems that contribute to environmental degradation; however, these processes were not directly examined in the present study.

The findings are also consistent with broader theories of self-conscious emotions (Tangney et al., 2007; Tracy and Robins, 2004). Guilt typically emerges when individuals perceive that their behavior, or the behavior of groups with which they identify, violates important moral standards while remaining amenable to corrective action (Tangney et al., 2007). Unlike anxiety, which is primarily oriented toward uncertainty and anticipated threat, or anger, which is directed toward external agents, guilt is inherently reflective because it requires evaluating one’s own responsibility in relation to personally valued standards (Tangney et al., 2007; Tracy and Robins, 2004). Because environmental identity is rooted in self-definition, one theoretical possibility is that it increases the relevance of moral self-appraisal when individuals confront environmental degradation.

Importantly, the positive association between environmental identity and eco-guilt should not be interpreted as indicating that guilt is inherently maladaptive. Psychological research has consistently shown that guilt can motivate reparative behaviors, promote prosocial action, and encourage behavioral change when experienced at adaptive levels (Tangney et al., 2007). Similarly, environmental psychology research suggests that eco-guilt may encourage individuals to reduce environmentally harmful behaviors, adopt more sustainable lifestyles, and engage in environmental action (Ágoston et al., 2022). From this perspective, eco-guilt may represent an important emotional pathway through which environmental identity translates into environmental engagement. Rather than viewing eco-guilt solely as an undesirable emotional outcome, it may also be understood as a psychologically meaningful response that reflects internalized environmental values and motivates constructive behavioral change.

Nevertheless, excessive or persistent eco-guilt may become psychologically burdensome when individuals perceive environmental problems as overwhelming or believe that their personal actions are insufficient to produce meaningful change. In such circumstances, guilt may contribute to helplessness, emotional exhaustion, or disengagement rather than constructive action. Future research should therefore examine the conditions under which eco-guilt functions as an adaptive motivator versus a source of psychological distress. Such work would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of moral emotions in fostering both individual wellbeing and environmental sustainability.

Finally, the association between environmental identity and eco-guilt raises important questions regarding the differentiation of climate emotions. Although climate emotions frequently co-occur, the present findings suggest that they may not share identical psychological antecedents or functions. Future longitudinal and cross-cultural studies should therefore continue examining whether distinct psychological characteristics differentially predict specific climate emotions and whether these emotional profiles, in turn, influence environmental behavior, mental health, and climate engagement through different pathways.

Implications for conservation science and climate emotion research

The present findings have several implications for conservation science and the growing literature on climate emotions. First, they suggest that understanding emotional responses to environmental degradation requires greater attention to how individuals psychologically relate to nature. Conservation research has traditionally emphasized environmental knowledge, attitudes, and risk perceptions as important determinants of environmental engagement. The present findings suggest that environmental identity may represent another relevant psychological dimension associated with emotional responses to environmental degradation. Individuals who incorporate nature into their self-concept may not simply recognize environmental problems but may also experience stronger emotional responses that influence subsequent engagement with environmental issues (Clayton, 2003; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; Stanley et al., 2021). Integrating environmental identity into conservation research may therefore provide a more comprehensive understanding of why individuals differ in their responses to environmental change despite sharing similar environmental conditions.

Second, the findings highlight the importance of conceptualizing climate emotions as psychologically distinct rather than as a single form of environmental distress. Although eco-anxiety has received considerable scholarly attention in recent years (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021), the present findings demonstrate that environmental identity was prospectively associated with eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger. These results suggest that climate emotions may possess distinct psychological antecedents and functions despite their conceptual overlap. Future studies should therefore move beyond examining eco-anxiety in isolation and instead investigate a broader range of climate emotions to better understand the diverse emotional processes through which individuals respond to environmental degradation.

Third, the study contributes to broadening the geographical evidence base of climate emotions research. Much of the existing literature has been conducted in North America, Europe, and Australia, whereas comparatively less attention has been devoted to populations living in regions that are disproportionately affected by climate change. By examining Filipino emerging adults, the present study provides evidence from one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. Although the psychological processes linking environmental identity and climate emotions may be broadly applicable across contexts, their expression may be shaped by cultural values, lived experiences of environmental hazards, and local environmental realities. Expanding climate emotions research across diverse cultural and ecological contexts will therefore be essential for developing theories that are both globally relevant and locally meaningful.

Finally, the findings may inform future research on environmental education, conservation practice, and climate communication by highlighting environmental identity as a psychological characteristic associated with climate-related emotional responses. However, because the present study was observational, the findings do not establish that interventions designed to strengthen environmental identity would produce changes in climate emotions or environmental engagement. Future intervention research is needed to examine whether and how environmental identity can be incorporated into programs addressing emotional engagement with environmental issues.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the present findings. First, although the study employed a longitudinal design, the two-week interval between measurement occasions captured only short-term prospective associations. Climate emotions may fluctuate over longer periods in response to environmental events, media exposure, or seasonal climatic changes. Future studies employing longer follow-up periods and multiple measurement waves would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how environmental identity and climate emotions evolve over time.

Second, although environmental identity was measured before climate emotions, baseline climate emotions were not included in the structural model. Consequently, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence that environmental identity predicts changes in climate emotions over time, and reverse or bidirectional associations cannot be ruled out. Rather, the study demonstrates that environmental identity prospectively relates to subsequent climate emotions. Future longitudinal research should incorporate repeated assessments of both environmental identity and climate emotions using cross-lagged panel models or random-intercept cross-lagged panel models to examine reciprocal relationships and better disentangle within-person changes from between-person differences.

Third, participants were recruited through non-probability sampling using online advertisements and university-based networks, and the sample consisted predominantly of university students. This recruitment strategy may have introduced self-selection bias, as individuals who chose to participate may differ systematically from those who did not participate, including in their interest in or concern about environmental issues. In addition, because the study focused on Filipino emerging adults residing in Metro Manila, caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings to other age groups, cultural contexts, or populations with different levels of environmental exposure. Future cross-cultural studies should examine whether the observed associations replicate across diverse sociocultural settings and among populations with varying degrees of direct experience with environmental change. Fourth, all study variables were assessed using self-report measures, which may have introduced common method variance and influenced the observed associations. Future research could incorporate multiple methods or data sources to reduce reliance on a single measurement method.

Finally, the present study focused on establishing prospective associations rather than directly examining the psychological processes through which environmental identity may be associated with climate emotions. The relatively modest proportions of variance explained further indicate that environmental identity represents only one of multiple factors likely associated with climate emotions. Accordingly, explanations involving self-relevance, environmental responsibility, or moral obligation should be regarded as theoretically informed interpretations rather than empirically tested mechanisms. Alternative explanations for the observed associations should also be considered. For example, broader environmental concern, environmental values, perceived climate risk, or direct exposure to climate-related hazards may contribute to both stronger environmental identity and more intense climate emotions, thereby partly accounting for their observed association. Contextual factors such as collective efficacy and opportunities for environmental action may also shape these relationships. Investigating these alternative explanations, mediating mechanisms, and moderating factors would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the associations between environmental identity and climate emotions. Future research should therefore examine whether environmental concern, environmental values, perceived climate risk, and direct exposure to climate-related hazards partly account for the associations between environmental identity and climate emotions. Studies with three or more measurement occasions could also examine reciprocal relationships and within-person changes in environmental identity and climate emotions, while experimental or intervention designs could test whether changes in environmental identity are followed by changes in emotional responses to environmental degradation.

Conclusion

As environmental degradation increasingly shapes people’s daily lives, understanding the psychological foundations of climate emotions has become an important research priority. The present study contributes to this emerging literature by demonstrating modest but statistically significant prospective associations between environmental identity and eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, and eco-anger among Filipino emerging adults. These findings suggest that individuals who more strongly incorporate nature into their self-concept may experience more intense emotional responses to environmental degradation because ecological change becomes increasingly relevant to their sense of self.

The study also bridges two complementary bodies of literature by linking environmental identity research, which has traditionally focused on environmental values and behaviors, with the growing literature on climate emotions. By demonstrating prospective associations between environmental identity and multiple climate emotions, the findings contribute to understanding individual differences in emotional responses to environmental change. Further research may clarify whether these associations have implications for environmental education, climate communication, conservation initiatives, and mental health practice.

As societies continue to confront accelerating environmental challenges, fostering environmental stewardship requires understanding not only how people think and behave toward the natural world but also how they emotionally experience its degradation. Integrating environmental identity into climate emotions research represents an important step toward developing a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological processes that connect people with the environments they seek to protect.