Emotional responses to climate change in Norway and Ireland: a validation of the Inventory of Climate Emotions (ICE) in two European countries and an inspection of its nomological span.

There is an increasing research interest in emotional responses to climate change and their role in climate action and psycho-social impacts of climate change. At the same time, emotional experience of climate change is multidimensional and influenced by a variety of factors, including the local cultural context. Here, we contribute to the scientific debate about this topic with original quality-controlled data from the general populations in Norway (N = 491) and Ireland (N = 485). We investigate the cross-cultural validity and the nomological span of eight distinct emotional responses to climate change - climate anger, climate contempt, climate enthusiasm, climate powerlessness, climate guilt, climate isolation, climate anxiety, and climate sorrow - measured using the recently introduced Inventory of Climate Emotions. We first validate the 8-factor structure of the Norwegian and English language versions of the ICE. Subsequently, we demonstrate a high degree of cross-cultural measurement invariance for these eight climate emotions. Finally, we explore the relationships between these emotional responses and a range of theoretically relevant variables. In this final step, we show that climate emotions are differentially linked to climate change perceptions, support for mitigation policies, socio-demographic factors, feelings of loneliness and alienation, environmental activism, and the willingness to prioritize the natural environment over one's immediate self-interests. Some of these links are also differentiated by the cultural context. This research presents further evidence for the structural, cross-cultural, and concurrent validity of climate emotions as postulated in the ICE framework. Moreover, it provides tools in the form of validated Norwegian and English language versions of the ICE, the complete R code for the validation analysis, as well as an informed basis for cross-cultural research on emotional responses to climate change.

Resilience profiles across context: A latent profile analysis in a German, Greek, and Swiss sample of adolescents.

The present study investigated resilience profiles (based on levels of symptoms of anxiety and depression and five dimensions of protective factors) of 1,160 students from Germany (n = 346, 46.0% females, Mage = 12.77, SDage = 0.78), Greece (n = 439, 54.5% females, Mage = 12.68, SDage = 0.69), and Switzerland (n = 375, 44.5% females, Mage = 12.29, SDage = 0.88) using latent profile analyses. We also checked for measurement invariance and investigated the influence of gender and migration on class membership. A three-profile-solution was found for Switzerland (nonresilient 22.1%, moderately resilient 42.9%, untroubled 34.9%), and a four-profile-solution was the best fitting model for Germany (nonresilient 15.7%, moderately resilient 44.2%, untroubled 27.3%, resilient 12.7%) and Greece (nonresilient 21.0%, moderately resilient 30.8%, untroubled 24.9%, resilient 23.3%). Measurement invariance did not hold across the three countries. Profile differences regarding class membership predictions were detected for Germany and Greece, but none for Switzerland. Results implicate that resilience profiles are highly contextually sensitive, and resilience research findings should not be generalized considering the particularity of contexts, people, and outcomes.

Relevance of well-being, resilience, and health-related quality of life to mental health profiles of European adolescents: results from a cross-sectional analysis of the school-based multinational UPRIGHT project.

PURPOSE: The existing evidence suggests that a complete evaluation of mental health should incorporate both psychopathology and mental well-being indicators. However, few studies categorize European adolescents into subgroups based on such complete mental health data. This study used the data on mental well-being and symptoms of mental and behavioral disorders to explore the mental health profiles of adolescents in Europe. METHODS: Data collected from adolescents (N = 3767; mean age 12.4 [SD = 0.9]) from five European countries supplied the information on their mental well-being (personal resilience, school resilience, quality of life, and mental well-being) and mental and behavioral disorder symptoms (anxiety, depression, stress, bullying, cyber-bullying, and use of tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis). Multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis were combined to classify the youths into mental health profiles. RESULTS: Adolescents were categorized into three mental health profiles. The "poor mental health" profile (6%) was characterized by low levels of well-being and moderate symptoms of mental disorders. The "good mental health" profile group (26%) showed high well-being and few symptoms of mental disorders, and the "intermediate mental health" profile (68%) was characterized by average well-being and mild-to-moderate symptoms of mental disorders. Groups with higher levels of well-being and fewer symptoms of mental disorders showed lower rates of behavioral problems. Mental well-being indicators strongly contributed to this classification. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with the "intermediate" or "poor" mental health profiles may benefit from interventions to improve mental health. Implications for school-based interventions are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (TRN) AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03951376. Registered 15 May 2019.

Measuring Resilience Across Participating Regions in the UPRIGHT EU Horizon 2020 Project: Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Resilience Scale for Adolescents.

Resilience is the process and outcome of healthy adaptation despite significant adversity. Proliferation of research on the resilience construct has led to scientific concerns about the operationalization and measurement of resilience for assessment science and practice. Various studies that have investigated the psychometric properties and construct validity of the Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ) have yielded inconsistent findings, which could partly be due to variations in the methodological approaches. This study investigated the factor structure and construct validity of the READ in four European regions participating in the Universal Preventive Resilience Intervention Globally Implemented in Schools to Improve and Promote Mental Health for Teenagers (UPRIGHT) project. Participants included adolescents aged 10-15 years from Spain (n = 391, females = 51%), Iceland (n = 379, females = 55%), Italy (n = 460, females = 55%), and Poland (n = 316, females = 51%). The five-factor model of the READ was similar across gender and participating regions. Construct validity of the READ was supported. After establishing construct separability, incremental validity was supported (except for the social competence subscale). The READ is a valid and reliable measure of protective factors involved in resilience and demonstrates promise for cross-cultural applicability. Recommendations for measuring resilience and validating the READ in future investigations are provided.

Temporal and Reciprocal Relations Between Worry and Rumination Among Subgroups of Metacognitive Beliefs.

Metacognitive theory provides strong foundation for hypothesizing relations between worry and rumination among subgroups of metacognitive beliefs. However, empirical exploration of prospective and reciprocal relations between worry and rumination are lacking. This study investigated the stability and relations between worry and rumination to better understand how they influence each other over time, and how different levels of metacognitive beliefs affect relations between (i) initial and future worry, and initial and future rumination, and (ii) the cross-lag relations between worry and rumination. Overall, 482 (Females = 63%) participants (Mean age = 26 years) participated in a two-wave data collection and completed the Metacognition Questionnaire (MCQ-30), the Ruminative Response Scale and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). A multigroup two-wave autoregressive cross-lagged model was estimated. Multigroup autoregression analyses revealed that independent of participants being in the high or low metacognition group, initial levels of worry predicted future levels of worry, as was the case for rumination. Multigroup cross-lagged analyses revealed that initial levels of worry did not predict future levels of rumination in both high and low levels of metacognitions. However, initial rumination predicted future levels of worry in the high metacognitions group, which was not the case for the low metacognitions group. Thus, high levels of metacognitions do not only strengthen the relation between both present and future worry, present and future rumination, but also present rumination with future worry. This finding may imply that those with rumination related conditions at present are more likely in the future to show both rumination and worry related conditions. Conversely, those with worry related conditions show future worry related conditions. These findings may have implications for a clinical sample regarding the high complexity of rumination conditions that may proceed with multifinality causal pathways especially for individuals with high levels of metacognitions. This complexity may be a possible explanation for the limited success in other traditional treatment of rumination related conditions and the relatively high relapse rates for such conditions in clinical samples.

UPRIGHT, a resilience-based intervention to promote mental well-being in schools: study rationale and methodology for a European randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is crucial period for laying the foundations for healthy development and mental well-being. The increasing prevalence of mental disorders amongst adolescents makes promotion of mental well-being and prevention interventions at schools important. UPRIGHT (Universal Preventive Resilience Intervention Globally implemented in schools to improve and promote mental Health for Teenagers) is designed as a whole school approach (school community, students and families) to promote a culture of mental well-being and prevent mental disorders by enhancing resilience capacities. The present article aims at describing the rationale, conceptual framework, as well as methodology of implementation and evaluation of the UPRIGHT intervention. METHODS: UPRIGHT project is a research and innovation project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under grant agreement No. 754919 (Duration: 48 months). The theoretical framework has been developed by an innovative and multidisciplinary approach using a co-creation process inside the UPRIGHT Consortium (involving seven institutions from Spain, Italy, Poland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland). Resulted is the UPRIGHT programme with 18 skills related to 4 components: Mindfulness, Coping, Efficacy and Social and Emotional Learning. Among the five Pan-European regions, 34 schools have been currently involved (17 control; 17 intervention) and around 6000 adolescents and their families are foreseen to participate along a 3-year period of evaluation. Effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated as a randomized controlled trial including quantitative and qualitative analysis in the five Pan-European regions representative of the cultural and socioeconomic diversity. The cost-effectiveness assessment will be performed by simulation modelling methods. DISCUSSION: We expect a short- to medium-term improvement of mental well-being in adolescents by enhancing resilience capacities. The study may provide robust evidence on intrapersonal, familiar and social environmental resilience factors promoting positive mental well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03951376 . Registered 15 May 2019.

Psychometric properties of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) and its relationship with life-stress, anxiety and depression in a Hispanic Latin-American community sample.

Resilience is a multi-dimensional construct associated with health and well-being. At present, we do not yet have a valid, scientific instrument that is designed to evaluate adult resilience in Spanish-speaking countries and that accounts for family, social and individual components. This study aimed at investigating the construct and cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) by combining Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Hierarchical Regression models in a Hispanic Latin-American group. A community sample of 805 adults answered the RSA, Spanish Language Stressful Life-Events checklist (SL-SLE), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). First-order CFA verified the six factors structure for the RSA (RMSEA = .037, SRMR = .047, CFI = .91, TLI = .90). Five RSA scales and total score have good internal consistency (scales α > .70; total score α = .90). Two second-order CFA verified the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of the protector factors of resilience, as well as their commonality and uniqueness with affective symptoms (anxiety and depression). An exploratory MDS reproduced the relations of RSA items and factors at first and second-order levels against random simulated data, thereby providing initial evidence of its cross-cultural validity in a Spanish-speaking group. The Four-steps hierarchical model showed that the RSA scales are the strongest predictors of anxiety and depression-greater than gender, age, education and stressful life-events. Three RSA scales are significant unique predictors of affective symptoms. In addition, similar to findings in diverse cultural settings, resilience is positively associated with age but not with education. Women report higher scores of Social Resources and Social Competence and lower scores of Perception of the Self. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the construct and criterion-related validity of the RSA in broad, diverse and Spanish speaking sample.

Resilience or hope? Incremental and convergent validity of the resilience scale for adults (RSA) and the Herth hope scale (HHS) in the prediction of anxiety and depression.

BACKGROUND: Hope and resilience protect against inner vulnerabilities or harsh life circumstances; they explain individual differences in physical or mental health outcomes under high stress. They have been studied in complementary or competing theoretical frameworks; therefore, the study of measures of hope and resilience should be undertaken prior to explore if they are truly value-added for research. This study investigates the convergent and incremental validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) and the Herth Hope Scale (HHS), in the prediction of anxiety and depression (HSCL-25). METHODS: Participants in this community-based sample are 762 adults from 18 to 74 years old. They answered the RSA, HHS, Spanish Language Stressful Life-Events Checklist (SL-SLE), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). Incremental validity analyses combined hierarchical regression and structural equation models (SEM). First, hierarchical regression models were compared based on three criteria (R 2Diff., ΔF, and semi-partial r), then the direct effect of resilience on affective symptoms was compared with the mediated effect of resilience on affective symptoms through hope. RESULTS: The hierarchical models showed that (1) hope and resilience account significantly for the variance of affective symptoms above age, sex, and life-stress; (2) Resilience Total score has greater incremental validity than positive scales of HHS Hope; and (3) RSA Total score, HHS Optimism/Spiritual support, Stressful life-events and sex are unique predictors of affective symptoms. The SEM analyses verified a stronger direct effect of resilience in the prediction of affective symptoms above the significant partial mediated effect of resilience through hope. Additionally, results show that age and better educational opportunities were associated with protection (i.e. resilience and hope) and emotional well-being (i.e. affective symptoms and hopelessness). Women showed higher scores in social competences and resources (RSA), interconnectedness and initiative to take action (HHS). However, they have poorer evaluations of own abilities and efficacy (RSA), and higher scores in all the affective symptoms assessed. CONCLUSION: The RSA has incremental validity above the HHS, however, both the RSA and the HHS are effective, differentiated and complementary measures of protection that are of high relevance for research on psychosocial and emotional well-being.