Climate change elicits a wide range of emotional and psychological responses, from anxiety and guilt to denial. Public and media discourse often present climate change distress and denial as opposing camps. We move beyond this dichotomy by identifying clusters of climate change distress and denial in 1006 Dutch young adults (aged 16–35, 51.2% women, population-representative). We measured four dimensions of climate change distress (eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, cognitive-emotional impairment, and functional impairment) and three dimensions of denial (of seriousness, personal impact, and impact elsewhere). Naturally occurring subgroups were identified using latent profile analysis. Profile differences in demographics, emotions, institutional trust, and coping strategies were examined using analysis of variance. We identified six profiles: burdened worriers, unburdened worriers, climate change deniers, skeptic worriers, NIMBYs (Not-In-My-BackYard), and conflicted skeptics. Despite low average distress levels, about half of the sample reported moderate to high distress, alongside varying denial levels. High-distress profiles reported more hope and proactive coping, while denial-heavy profiles were linked to fatalism, lower institutional trust, and limited engagement. Profiles differed only minimally by gender, age, income, and living environment; education showed no differences. By identifying six distinct patterns, this study moves beyond the activist–denier framing common in public discourse, showing that climate change distress and denial coexist in complex ways among Dutch youth. Future research should examine the stability of these profiles and include additional dimensions, such as ecological grief. • Latent profile analysis revealed six climate distress–denial subgroups in Dutch young adults • Distress and denial coexisted in half the sample despite low average distress levels • High-distress profiles showed more hope and proactive coping behaviors • Denial-heavy profiles linked to fatalism, lower institutional trust, and limited action • Study moves beyond activist–denier framing in public discourse, showing nuanced psychological responses
Reitsema et al. (Sun,) studied this question.