Patterns of climate-change coping among late adolescents: Differences in emotions concerning the future, moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement

Young people both are and will be greatly affected by climate change, an insight which can trigger a range of stressful emotions concerning the future. How young people cope with climate change as a stressor can be of importance for both moral responsibility and climate-change engagement. People often use a combination of coping strategies; however, the focus thus far has merely been on isolated coping strategies. Using a person-centered approach, the aim of this study was to examine: (1) patterns of climate-change coping among late adolescents and (2) if late adolescents characterized by unique patterns of coping differ regarding emotions concerning the future (worry, pessimism, optimism), moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement (outcome expectancy and climate-friendly food choices). A questionnaire study was conducted with 474 Swedish senior high-school students (16–22 years old, mean age: 17.91). A cluster analysis revealed three unique patterns of coping: The solution-oriented group (43%, high on problem-and meaning-focused coping), the avoidant group (33%, high on de-emphasizing and meaning-focused coping), and the uninvolved group (24%, low on all coping strategies). The solution-oriented group differed from the other two groups in reporting more climate-change worry, moral responsibility, outcome expectancy, and climate-friendly food choices. The uninvolved group reported more climate-change worry, moral responsibility, and climate-friendly food choices than the avoidant group, and the least optimism. The avoidant group was the least pessimistic. Our results reveal the importance of exploring patterns of climate-change coping to understand young people’s engagement concerning this global threat.


Background
Young people are an important stakeholder group concerning climate change, since it is their future that is threatened.Although young people have been found to be particularly worried about climate change (see Hickman et al. 2021), not all feel responsibility to take an active part in mitigating this problem (e.g., World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 2017).It is also quite common to feel hopelessness and pessimism concerning the global future, or even for younger adults to have eco-reproductive concerns due to climate change (e.g., Ojala 2010;Schneider-Mayerson and Leong 2020;Thomas et al. 2022).One factor that may be related to whether young people will feel responsibility concerning this problem, and be active in fighting it, is how they cope with their emotions regarding climate change and the global future.Research shows that children and adolescents use various coping strategies to deal with climate change (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Ojala and Bengtsson 2019;Pettersson 2014).Some of these strategies, like problem-focused coping, are positively related to climate-change engagement, while others, like de-emphasizing the seriousness of the threat, are negatively related to engagement.Meaning-focused coping, where young people do not primarily try to rid themselves of worry but instead activate hope that can reside side by side with worry, has also been identified as one important way to cope (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Ojala and Bengtsson 2019;Pettersson 2014).
General coping research has shown that people often use a mix of coping strategies and that it is this mix that is important for psychological adjustment (Zeidner and Saklofske 1996).However, earlier research about climate change and coping has focused only on specific coping strategies in isolation and then used variable-oriented approaches, like correlation analyses, to investigate how the different strategies are related to for example climatechange engagement (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;van Zomeren et al. 2019).In the present study we want to complement earlier research and focus on patterns of coping at a person level, i.e., unique combinations of coping strategies, rather than isolated coping variables across people.Thereby, we use a person-oriented approach in this study, in which the persons, with all their complexities and potential patterns of coping, are seen as the organizing units, rather than focusing on separate coping strategies being the organizing units across people (Bergman et al. 2002).By looking at patterns of climate-change coping we hope to shed new light on how to promote both moral responsibility and active engagement concerning the climate threat among young people, as well as a positive view of the future.
The overarching aim of this study is to identify subgroups of late adolescents that are characterized by different constellations of problem-focused, meaning-focused, and deemphasizing coping concerning climate change.We use a person-centered approach, namely a cluster analysis, to identify different patterns of coping, after which we will investigate whether late adolescents characterized by various patterns of coping differ on emotions concerning the future (worry, optimism, pessimism), moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement.We focus on one specific aspect of climate-change engagement, namely climate-friendly food choices and the outcome expectancy late adolescents experience in relation to this engagement, i.e., if they think their food choices matter regarding climate change at large.Making climate-friendly food choices has been found to be one effective way lay people can contribute to mitigating climate change (Clark et al. 2020;Garnett 2008).In addition, food choices are something that late adolescents, who still mostly live in their childhood home, have a fair degree of control over (see Mäkiniemi andVainio 2013, 2016), which is not always the case regarding other forms of climate engagement like energy use or transportation choices.

Young people and climate change
Climate change concerns continuous and long-lasting changes in both weather and temperatures, changes which for more than 200 years now have been caused by humans (IPCC 2023).Young people both are and will be greatly affected by climate change; it is their future that is currently in danger.They also play a part in the climate-change problem through their lifestyle and consumption.Moreover, young people will be future decisionmakers, and it is important that they are provided with tools to act to the benefit of the environment, and as active citizens.Young people encounter climate change both directly through different climate related negative events like flooding and heatwaves and indirectly via, for example, media and school (Pereira and Freire 2021).In both these cases climate change could be perceived as a stressor that young people feel a need to cope with.
We will focus on late adolescents that are on the verge of starting their own adult life (Arnett 2007).This is a developmental stage where one must deal with several substantive problems in the world, sometimes associated with feelings of uncertainty.Erikson (1963) argued that adolescence is a life stage in which one tries to find one´s place in society.This is a time when it´s easy to develop feelings of helplessness regarding questions which can be overwhelming, such as the climate crisis.In addition, the complexity of the climate crisis may hinder people from feeling motivated to engage in climate action (van Zomeren et al. 2019).
To this date, most research on the psychological dimensions of climate change focuses on adults (see Pereira and Freire 2021).It is important to expand the scope to include how late adolescents relate to and behave regarding these issues.They can be perceived as being in a more vulnerable developmental stage than adults, and it is not certain that they will perceive, feel, cope, and act in the same way concerning climate change.Therefore, our empirical study will focus on young people in their late adolescence, which has been suggested by Sawyer et al. (2018) in these times could stretch as far as to the age of 24.

What is coping?
In this study we focus on how late adolescents cope with climate change and related negative emotions.According to the transactional theory of coping, coping is defined as "cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus and Folkman 1984, p. 141).Thus, coping is about how people handle stress and negative emotions.Coping differs from automated adaptive behavior in that it requires cognitive or behavioral efforts to adapt to a stressful situation (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).Although the prime focus in coping research has been on how people deal with micro-stressors, like school stress, people also use different coping strategies to deal with emotions that are evoked by societal problems (Clarke 2006;Heyman et al. 2010).Furthermore, people not only feel a need to cope with self-focused negative emotions, for example worry about losing their job, but may also feel the need to cope with other-oriented emotions triggered, for example, when seeing other people's suffering (Cameron and Payne 2011;Seider 2008).
According to the original version of the transactional theory of coping, two main coping strategies can be distinguished: emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).Emotion-focused coping is about trying to reduce or eliminate negative feelings that have been triggered by a problem or stressor.This is done with the help of various more specific strategies such as distancing, social support, or by denying the problem at hand.Problem-focused coping, instead, is about focusing on the problem and either trying to cognitively find ways to do something about it or to do something concrete to fight the problem, and indirectly also deal with the negative emotions felt.Often quantitative studies focus on the cognitive aspects of problem-focused coping and then investigate if these ways of thinking are associated with different kinds of reported engagement (see for example Homburg et al. 2007;Ojala 2012Ojala , 2013)).
When coping with problems that are within a person's control (like studying for an exam), problem-focused coping is often positively related to both active engagement and psychological wellbeing (Clarke 2006;Lazarus and Folkman 1984).However, when a problem is not within a person's full control but still requires active involvement, for example when a person is living with a chronic disease, problem-focused coping has been found to be related to increased distress (Clarke 2006;Heyman et al. 2010).In this regard, a third coping strategy, meaning-focused coping could be of value (see Folkman 2008;Folkman and Moskowitz 2000;Park and Folkman 1997).Meaning-focused coping is about using strategies such as benefit finding, positive reappraisal, and emphasizing trust to activate positive emotions.These positive emotions can then reside side by side with negative emotions, hindering them from turning into general mental distress and helping people confront the problem at hand and use problem-focused coping (Folkman 2008;Park and Folkman 1997).Thus, meaning-focused coping can be an important complement to problem-focused coping.
The fact that meaning-focused and problem-focused coping are supposed to be positively related in the coping process indicates that people do not use specific coping strategies in isolation but use a mix of coping strategies to deal with stressors (see Folkman 2009).Therefore, researchers have focused on capturing patterns or profiles of coping, that is, different constellations of more specific coping strategies which people use (Kavčič et al. 2022;Smith and Wallston 1996;Zeidner and Saklofske 1996).To use a combination of active coping strategies in a flexible way may improve adaptation (Zeidner and Saklofske 1996), while a combination of passive strategies, or not using coping at all, may lower adjustment (Kavčič et al. 2022;Smith and Wallston 1996).Still, patterns of coping have largely been ignored regarding coping with climate change.
Some studies, however, indicate that people use a mix of coping strategies regarding climate change.In a study with children, meaning-focused coping moderated the relation between problem-focused coping and general negative affect, in that those who used a high degree of problem-focused coping experienced less general negative affect if they also used a high degree of meaning-focused coping (Ojala 2012).This indicates that young people at least sometimes use a mix of different coping strategies regarding climate change.One qualitative study with young people also showed that the children used complex sets of coping strategies rather than using specific strategies in isolation, where some combined de-emphasizing the threat (a form of emotion-focused coping) with meaning-focused strategies (Pettersson 2014, p. 75).Still, quantitative studies that take account of patterns of climate change coping are non-existent.In the following sections we will shortly review studies of coping with climate change, which thus far have only used variable-oriented methods of data analysis.

Coping with climate change and emotions concerning the future
Becoming aware of climate change can trigger worry, pessimism, anger, and sorrow (Hickman et al. 2021).However, people can also feel hope and optimism about the possibility of solving climate change (Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).In this study we focus on three future-oriented emotions, worry, pessimism, and optimism, as well as if, and how, they differ between late adolescents that are characterized by different patterns of coping.
Worry, which is often defined as an anxiety-like negative emotion triggered by repetitive thinking/cognition about future possible negative events, is often seen as a trigger of coping (Sweeny and Dooley 2017).Optimism and pessimism, which are either positive or negative emotions and expectations about the future possibility of solving a problem, can also play a part in how a person copes and adjusts to stressors (Nes and Segerstrom 2006).The causal direction between optimism/pessimism and coping could go both ways, however.The transactional theory of coping claims that one needs to feel at least some hope or optimism regarding a problem to deem it worthwhile to cope in a problem-focused way (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).On the other hand, using constructive coping strategies could also lead to increased feelings of optimism (Cunningham et al. 2002).
Earlier variable-oriented research with young people shows that climate-change coping is associated with future-oriented emotions.Meaning-focused coping has been found to be positively related to both optimism and worry about climate change (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Wullenkord and Ojala 2023), while this way of coping seems to be unrelated to pessimism (Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).Problem-focused coping has been found to foremost be positively related to climate worry, and de-emphasizing the climate threat has been found to be negatively related to climate worry (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013)).In this study we therefore investigate if young people who are characterized by different constellations of coping strategies also differ regarding worry, optimism, and pessimism.

Coping with climate change and moral responsibility
Coping could also be related to taking on moral responsibility for the climate threat or not.Moral responsibility can be defined as self-chosen restrictions about whether to act, partly depending on how these actions affect other people (Bierhoff and Auhagen 2001).Having a sense of moral responsibility and ascribing moral obligation to oneself are related to intentions to act to the benefit of the environment as well as actual pro-environmental behavior among both adults and young people (Markowitz 2012;Mäkiniemi andVainio 2013, 2016).Thus, moral responsibility could be vital for climate-change engagement.However, global issues, such as the climate crisis, are not associated with personal moral responsibility for all individuals.Instead, some people for various reasons, for example the inability to face difficult emotions, cope by morally disengaging themselves from these concerns and instead, for example, ascribe responsibility to others (Leviston and Walker 2021).
The theory of moral disengagement stems from Bandura´s (1990Bandura´s ( , 2007) ) social cognitive theory.Bandura suggests several psychological mechanisms that we as humans use to disengage our moral standards from the harmful behavior that contradicts our morality.These mechanisms consist of, for instance, depersonalizing, dehumanizing, or minimizing the detrimental effects of one´s own behavior or shifting responsibility from oneself to others.Seider (2008) connects moral disengagement to coping by arguing that it is the inability to face and bear difficult emotions in relation to taking the perspective of others that makes people inclined to use moral disengagement.In this regard, Cameron and Payne (2011) show that people can proactively cope in denial-like ways to avoid facing difficult moral emotions.In the climate-change field, Gifford (2011) has summarized strategies that people use to avoid taking on responsibility for climate change, like focusing on technosalvation and actively denying the problem.These studies indicate that moral responsibility concerning climate change can also be related to how people cope with the threat (see also Stoll-Kleemann and O'Riordan 2020).For example, de-emphasizing the threat could be seen as a way to morally disengage, while meaning-focused coping could instead help people to face difficult moral emotions.In this study we, therefore, will investigate if people characterized by different constellations of coping differ in terms of moral responsibility.

Coping with climate change, outcome expectancy and climate-friendly food choices
How people cope with climate change has also been found to be vital for different kinds of climate-change engagement (Homburg et al. 2007;Reser and Swim 2011).Studies with adults have shown that cognitive problem-focused coping is positively associated with proenvironmental behavior (Zomeren et al. 2019), while an emotion-focused strategy, denial of guilt, has the opposite relation to engagement (Homburg et al. 2007).It has also been found that coping through different denial-like strategies discourages active involvement with climate change (Wullenkord and Reese 2021).Among young people, de-emphasizing the climate-threat is negatively related to climate-change engagement, both reported behavior and feelings of outcome expectancy (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013)).Furthermore, among young people, cognitive problem-focused coping is strongly positively related to climate-change engagement (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Ojala and Bengtsson 2019;Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).Meaning-focused coping is mostly positively associated with felt efficacy and climate engagement, although less strongly than problem-focused coping (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Ojala and Bengtsson 2019), and in one case it was not significantly related to engagement (see Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).In this study we will focus on if young people characterized by different constellations of coping differ regarding climate-change engagement, in this case, climate-friendly food choices and feelings of outcome expectancy, that is, if one feels one can influence the climate problem by making climate-friendly food choices (Collado and Evans 2019).
Climate-friendly food choices can to a large extent help in restricting climate change via reduced greenhouse gas emissions (Clark et al. 2020;Garnett 2008).It is one of the most efficient ways in which individuals can contribute to a more sustainable planet in their everyday lives (Clark et al. 2020).According to Nielsen et al. (2021), the field of environmental psychology research benefits from using an impact-focused research outline, where pro-environmental behavior with a potentially high impact on climate change and the possibility of changing these behaviors should be prioritized.Focusing on climate-friendly food choices can therefore help boost the practical relevance of psychology, and it is consequently vital to investigate potential explanatory factors, like coping.Food choice is also a kind of engagement that late adolescents, who still mostly live at their childhood home, have some control over (see Mäkiniemi andVainio 2013, 2016).

Aim and research questions
In this study we want to expand the understanding of how young people cope with climate change.It has been suggested that people do not use specific coping strategies in isolation but rather a mix of coping strategies to deal with stressors (see Folkman 2009;Zeidner and Saklofske 1996).Still, until now, research about coping with climate change has not investigated possible patterns of coping.To address this gap in the literature the first aim of the present study, using a person-centered approach, is to investigate whether distinct patterns of coping can be found among late adolescents.The second aim is to explore how late adolescents characterized by diverse coping patterns differ regarding emotions concerning the future, moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement (outcome expectancy and climate-friendly food choices).Since this study employs an explorative approach and very little research has been performed, no specific hypotheses will be stated.
RQ1: What kinds of patterns of problem-focused coping, meaning-focused coping, and de-emphasizing coping in relation to climate change can be found among late adolescents?
RQ2: Do young people who belong to different subgroups of coping differ on emotions concerning the future (climate-change worry, pessimism, and optimism)?
RQ3: Do young people who belong to different subgroups of coping differ in terms of moral responsibility?
RQ4: Do young people who belong to different subgroups of coping differ in terms of climate-change engagement (outcome expectancy and climate-friendly food choices)?

Procedure
Swedish senior high-school students participated in an online survey study on late adolescents' experiences with climate change and food choices.Senior high-school students were the target group, because this group has an age range around 16 to 19 years and reaching this target group through schools was deemed the most efficient and representative approach.For the sake of variability, students from small, medium, and large communities in mid-Sweden were recruited.Variability in study-program orientations was also prioritized.Trained test leaders collected the data in late 2019 to early 2020 during regular school hours.Prior to participating, students were informed about ethics and the aim of the study.The test leaders remained in the classroom the entire time the students filled in the questionnaire.No teachers were present during data collection.The respondents did not receive any rewards.Those who decided not to participate did schoolwork instead.The study was approved by the Swedish National Ethics Committee.

Sample
The sample consisted of 480 senior high school students who logged into the questionnaire.The external participation rate was 68%, that is, out of all students registered in the participating classes, 68% of the students started filling in the questionnaire.Although a convenience sample, students belonged to a range of different college-preparatory and vocational programs.The three most commonly occurring programs that the participants studied were Social Science (33.69%),Art, Music, and Drama (24.95%), and Natural Science (18.55%).Smaller programs included Construction and Installation (9.17%), Technology (4.90%), a combination of Social and Natural Science (4.05%), Care and Treatment (2.99%), and Restaurant and Food (1.71%).Of the initial sample of 480 senior high-school students that logged into the questionnaire, six cases were excluded. 1The final sample consisted of N = 474 students.58% of the participants identified as female, the other 42% as male.
The age ranged between 16 to 22 years, with 90% of the sample being 17-18 years old (M = 17.91 years, SD = 0.68).89% of the students stated that they were born in Sweden, and 93% of the participants reported still living at home with one or both parents during both weekdays and weekends.

Measures 2
Coping strategies were measured through a scale used by Ojala (2012Ojala ( , 2013) ) and Ojala and Bengtsson (2019).The adolescents were instructed to rate how well several statements applied to them regarding what they usually do when they hear, think, or read about climate-change issues.The response alternatives were "Does not apply at all = 1", "Does not apply very well = 2", "Applies to some extent = 3″, "Applies fairly well = 4,", "Applies very well = 5." Problem-focused coping was measured through three items (e.g., I think about what I, personally, can do to improve the climate-change issue).Cronbach´s alpha = 0.80.Meaning-focused coping was measured through 6 items: (e.g., I think that more and more people have started to take climate change seriously," "I have faith in humanity; we can fix all problems"), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.70.De-emphasizing coping was measured through 7 items: (e.g., "I think that the problem is exaggerated," "I can't be bothered to care about climate change"), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.85.Climate-change worry was measured through five items (Ojala 2012) where respondents were asked to rate to what extent they agreed with the five different statements, on a six-point scale (ranging from 1: Not at all, to 6: To a large extent) (e.g., "I worry that I myself will be negatively affected by climate change issues," or "I worry that animals and/ or nature will be negatively affected by the climate crisis"), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.89.
Optimism regarding climate change was measured by three items (e.g., "I feel hopeful that we will fix the climate change problem in the future") (Ojala 2012).The respondents were asked to rate to what extent the different statements could be applied to them, on a six-point scale (ranging from 1: Not at all, to 6: To a large extent), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.84.
Pessimism regarding climate change was measured by three items (e.g., "I think the world will collapse in the future as a result of climate change") (Ojala 2012).The respondents were asked to rate to what extent the different statements could be applied to them, on a six-point scale (ranging from 1: Not at all, to 6: To a large extent), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.78.
Moral responsibility regarding climate-friendly food choices was measured through a newly created scale inspired by and building on a scale by Ojala & Rikner (2010), in this study adapted to measure moral responsibility for food choices (the original scale concerns moral responsibility for saving energy).The scale contained five items where respondents were asked to rate to what extent they agreed with the five different statements, on a 1 Six cases were excluded since they had not filled in the questionnaire at all (n = 1), were over 24 years old, n = 2), or were straightlining all their answers (n = 3). 2 See Appendix 1 for all items in the scales.six-point scale (ranging from 1: Do not agree at all, to 6: Fully agree) (e.g., "I have a moral responsibility to eat climate-friendly," "I do not think I have a duty to eat climate friendly [reversed]), Cronbach's alpha = 0.85.
Outcome expectancy was measured using two items, modified from a scale by Mead et al. (2012).Response options ranged from 1 = Not at all, to 5 = To a large extent.The items were formulated as follows: "To what extent do you think your food choices can affect climate issues in a positive direction?"and "To what extent do you think the food choices of Swedish people can affect climate issues in a positive direction?",Cronbachs alpha = 0.81.
Climate-friendly food choices was assessed by a scale consisting of eight items based on a slightly revised scale created by Mäkiniemi and Vainio (2013).The respondents were asked to rate how frequently they made climate-friendly food choices on a seven-point scale (1 = never, 2 = less than once a year, 3 = once or a few times a year, 4 = once or a few times every six months, 5 = once or a few times a month, 6 = once or a few times a week, 7 = almost every day or daily).Eight statements were included in the analysis (e.g., "I try to select food that have as small a negative climate effect as possible," "I favor local food"), Cronbach´s alpha = 0.85.

Data analysis
The data analysis started with data cleaning 3 and descriptive statistics.Regarding missing values, all the coping scales had less than 5% missing values (Problem-focused coping = 1.3%, Meaning-focused coping = 4.3%, and De-emphasizing coping = 3.3%).The scale means were therefore used to replace missing coping values in the analyses.This method has its disadvantages, but as the number of missing values can be perceived as relatively low (Tabachnick and Fidell 2013), replacing the missing values with the mean is not interpreted as yielding very different results than if other procedures had been chosen.
Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify coping patterns.K-means cluster analysis was also performed to find the most robust clustering solution (Hair et al. 2019).As discussed in Hair et al. (2019), if deemed appropriate, data used in cluster analysis can be standardized because of sensitivity to outliers and extreme values on the cluster variables.When exploring standardized values of the coping variables, we decided to recode large z-transformed values of de-emphasizing coping (2.2%) and meaning-focused coping (2.4%) into the value of 2.5 (Bergman 1998, Bergman et al. 2002).Problem-focused coping did not have any z-transformed values outside 2.5.After coping patterns were established through cluster analysis, we analyzed whether these clusters differed on climate-change worry, optimism, pessimism, moral responsibility, outcome expectancy, and climate-friendly food choices, using One-Way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA), followed by Games-Howell post-hoc tests.Games-Howell post hoc-tests were chosen because homogeneity of variance was violated in some cases (Games and Howell 1976).All statistical analyses were conducted through IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28.
3 Eight cases did not answer any of the items in the coping measures.They were therefore not included in analyses (n = 8), and 5 cases only answered half or fewer of the items in the coping measures (n = 5) and were consequently also excluded from analyses.

Identifying patterns of climate-change coping, RQ1
Since multicollinearity between variables used for cluster analysis may impact the results (Hair et al. 2019), correlation analyses of the coping variables were performed (see Appendix 2 for correlations and descriptive statistics).No correlations between the coping variables were perceived as too high (r > 0.90., Tabachnick and Fidell 2013).A hierarchical agglomerative method (Ward's method) with squared Euclidian distance was used to explore naturally occurring clusters of de-emphasizing, problem-focused, and meaningfocused coping, by looking at the dendrogram and large increases in the agglomeration coefficients.In addition, an iterative partitioning clustering method (K-means) was used to identify subgroups of the same coping variables.When comparing clusters from the hierarchical and the K-means methods in trying to find the simplest probable patterns that still represents homogeneous coping groups, only the three-cluster solution had a robust strength of agreement, indicated by a kappa-value of 0.83, p < 0.001 (Landis and Koch 1977).When the different clustering alternatives were analyzed based on previous research in the field, the three-cluster solution was interpreted as having the strongest theoretical foundation.In addition, using a solution with four or five clusters did not add substantial meaning to the following analyses of variance in comparison to the three clusters solution.Therefore, three clusters were chosen as the clearest and simplest structure.Thus, the clustering solution from the K-means cluster analysis shows the following three unique patterns of coping: The avoidant (cluster 1, high on de-emphasizing and meaning-focused coping), the uninvolved (cluster 2, low on all coping strategies), and the solution-oriented (cluster 3, high on problem-and meaning-focused coping) (see Table 1 and Fig. 1).Because of violation of the homogeneity-of-variance assumption in some cases, Welch F-tests were performed to analyze cluster heterogeneity.The three clusters were satisfactorily differentiated on both problem-focused coping, F(2, 261.00) = 232.85,p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.50; meaningfocused coping, F(2, 258.33) = 154.95,p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.44, and de-emphasizing coping, F(2, 230.62) = 176.92,p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.47.Of the participants, 33% could be found within the avoidant cluster, 24% within the uninvolved cluster, and 43% within the solution-oriented cluster.
We named the first cluster the "Avoidant," as they seem to avoid both negative emotions and individual responsibility regarding climate-change issues by this time combining meaning-focused coping with de-emphasizing (Fig. 1, Table 1).Cluster two is called the "Uninvolved," since this subgroup seems to be less involved than the other two groups when it comes to using climate-change coping strategies.Finally, we named the third cluster "Solution-oriented," as this subgroup combine problem-focused coping and meaningfocused coping by for example trying to look for solutions that they themselves can contribute to, as well as seemingly acknowledging that other people also help fight climate change (Fig. 1, Table 1).

Differences in emotions concerning the future (worry, optimism, and pessimism), RQ2
With the coping patterns established (see Fig. 1 and Table 1), we then moved on to analyze if and how these coping groups potentially differed on emotions concerning the future, moral responsibility, and climate-friendly engagement, using One-Way Analyses The Avoidant (cluster 1) = high on de-emphasizing and meaning-focused coping, the Uninvolved (cluster 2) = low on all coping strategies, and the Solution-oriented (cluster 3) = high on problem-and meaning-focused coping.
Welch of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Games-Howell post-hoc tests (see Table 2).Overall, results show significant mean differences between the clusters on all variables.
In Table 2, a Games-Howell post-hoc test for multiple comparisons revealed that the solution-oriented group reported significantly higher mean values than the avoidant and the uninvolved group in relation to climate-change worry (the solution-oriented group: M = 4.80, SD = 0.86, the avoidant group: M = 3.52, SD = 1.12, and the uninvolved group: M = 4.01, SD = 1.40).In addition, the uninvolved group reported significantly higher mean values than the avoidant group regarding climate-change worry.Furthermore, within the uninvolved cluster, there were significantly lower mean values of optimism (M = 2.47, SD = 0.85) than in the avoidant (M = 3.50, SD = 1.04) and the solution-oriented clusters (M = 3.38, SD = 0.89).The avoidant group reported significantly lower levels of pessimism (M = 3.05, SD = 1.12) than the uninvolved group (M = 3.62, SD = 1.27) and the solutionoriented group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.09).

Differences in moral responsibility, RQ3
A Games-Howell post-hoc test for multiple comparisons (Table 2) reveals that the mean value of the solution-oriented group was significantly higher than both the avoidant and the uninvolved group in relation to moral responsibility (the solution-oriented group: M = 4.59, SD = 1.00, the avoidant group: M = 3.26, SD = 0.98, and the uninvolved group: M = 3.62, SD = 1.05).Moreover, the uninvolved group also reported higher levels than the avoidant group regarding moral responsibility.

Differences in climate-change engagement (climate-friendly food choices and outcome expectancy), RQ4
As can be seen in Table 2, a Games-Howell post-hoc test for multiple comparisons showed that the solution-oriented group reported significantly higher mean values than the avoidant and the uninvolved group on the following engagement variables: climate-friendly food choices, (the solution-oriented group: M = 5.05, SD = 1.10, the avoidant group: M = 3.40, SD = 1.32, and the uninvolved group: M = 3.84, SD = 1.43), and outcome expectancy (the solution-oriented group: M = 3.57, SD = 0.72, the avoidant group: M = 2.97, SD = 0.91, and the uninvolved group: M = 3.00, SD = 1.03).Furthermore, the uninvolved group reported significantly higher levels than the avoidant group regarding climate-friendly food choices.

Discussion
By using a person-centered approach, this study is the first to examine: (1) patterns of climate-change coping among late adolescents, and (2) whether late adolescents characterized by unique patterns of coping differ regarding future-oriented emotions, moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement.Regarding our first aim, a cluster analysis revealed three unique groups of coping: The solution-oriented (high on problem-and meaningfocused coping), the avoidant (high on de-emphasizing and meaning-focused coping), and the uninvolved (low on all coping strategies).Regarding our second aim, we found theoretically meaningful differences between the three groups on all three aspects, that is, future emotions, moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement.

Constructive coping
The solution-oriented group in this study, i.e., the subgroup that combines a high degree of problem-focused coping with a high degree of meaning-focused coping, can be said to be characterized by their efforts to look for solutions that they themselves can contribute to.
In addition, they seem to acknowledge that they are not alone in fighting climate change, being aware that other actors are also working to try to mitigate climate change.Nearly half of all the participants, 43%, were found within this group.Theoretically, meaningfocused coping is supposed to help people face stressors and to cope in a problem-focused way (Folkman 2008).Problem-focused coping has previously been associated with high levels of meaning-focused coping, for example by working as a mediator between meaning-focused coping and climate-change engagement (Ojala and Bengtsson 2019).The presence of the solution-oriented group in this study gives further support that meaningfocused coping can help problem-focused efforts.The solution-oriented group seems to be a rather constructive group compared to the other two.This group was the one most worried but also felt the most responsibility about climate change, reported higher degrees of climate-friendly food choices and outcome expectancy than the two other groups, as well as medium levels of optimism and pessimism.Although the effects and awareness of climate change can sometimes be linked to emotional distress (Heeren et al. 2022), a high degree of worry about climate change has also been found to be positively associated with climate-change engagement, and this is particularly true in individualistic countries (Ogunbode et al. 2022).Sweden, where this study was performed, is one of the most individualistic countries in the world (EVS 2022).For the solution-oriented group, it seems a more constructive form of climate-change worry is the most dominant, since this group also reported the highest levels of engagement in terms of outcome expectancy and climate-friendly food choices.Problem-focused and meaning-focused coping in combination can most probably help the young people in this group to turn worry into a motivational force (Folkman 2008;Ojala 2012;Park and Folkman 1997).Problem-focused coping is often not sufficient to deal with worry concerning problems that are not under one's own control, like societal issues (Clarke 2006;Heyman et al. 2010).Meaning-focused coping, on the other hand, through its relation to hope and other positive emotions, can help people live with worry in an active way (Folkman 2008).The fact that the solution-oriented group was also quite optimistic about limiting climate change, and significantly more so than the uninvolved group, supports these theoretical claims further.Moreover, one can speculate that the relatively high belief in the solution-oriented group that one can influence the climate-change problem could have been strengthened Page 15 of 21 125 by their specific coping profile, in particular a high trust in other agents acting responsibly (part of meaning-focused coping), which may promote the feeling that it is worthwhile doing something oneself, i.e. a high degree of outcome expectancy (see Ojala 2013).However, since this is a cross-sectional study and we cannot say anything about causal relations, there could also exist a bidirectional relationship between outcome expectancy and coping.
The solution-oriented group also reported the highest levels of moral responsibility.Again, it can be argued that the combination of problem-focused and meaning-focused coping can likely help the young people in this group carry difficult emotions (Folkman 2008), e.g., feelings related to moral responsibility, like guilt, and therefore they perhaps do not feel the need to deny responsibility.

Avoidance
We found a group of late adolescents that seems to avoid both negative emotions and moral responsibility as well as climate-change engagement by combining de-emphasizing the climate threat and the use of meaning-focused coping.Of all the participants, 34% belonged to this group.Meaning-focused coping is used in combination with a high degree of denial of the seriousness of climate change, and denial of climate change could be seen as a form of moral disengagement (see Stoll-Kleemann and O'Riordan 2020).In this group meaningfocused coping is perhaps used to transfer responsibility to others, which is a common way of coping with climate change (see Stoll-Kleemann and O'Riordan 2020).To have trust in other actors, a vital part of meaning-focused coping, seems to be related to not taking action oneself in this group.Why this is the case needs to be explored further in future research.
The discovery that meaning-focused coping can be present in patterns both with problem-focused and de-emphasizing coping, is also in line with findings that have shown somewhat mixed results regarding the association between meaning-focused coping and climate-change engagement, with not only positive associations, but also null results (Ojala and Bengtsson 2019;Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).A qualitative study with children also indicated that meaning-focused strategies sometimes are combined with denial-like strategies, and sometimes with problem-focused strategies (see Pettersson 2014).Hence, the present study further indicates that climate-change coping needs to be explored not only as isolated coping strategies, but as patterns of coping, since a strategy like meaning-focused coping could have different meanings for the individual depending upon what other coping strategies they use.
Concerning the fact that the avoidant group reported low levels of both pro-environmental behavior and outcome expectancy: Perhaps this way of coping, to focus on the notion that the climate-problem is exaggerated, could be a way to deal with a sense of powerlessness.The new finding in the present study is that coping by de-emphasizing the climate threat appeared together with high levels of meaning-focused coping, a strategy that in all previous research has been found to be associated with a high degree of outcome-expectancy or self-efficacy (see Ojala 2012Ojala , 2013;;Ojala and Bengtsson;2019;Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).This again reveals the importance of looking at specific coping strategies in the context of other coping strategies.To combine meaning-focused coping with problemfocused coping is most probably vital to outcome expectancy, although the relation can be bidirectional (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
The avoidant group also was highest on optimism and lowest on pessimism and worry regarding climate-change, and this could indicate that their combination of de-emphasizing and meaning-focused coping is a way to maintain a brighter view of the future, and perhaps protects against low subjective wellbeing at the expense of active engagement (see Ojala 2012Ojala , 2013)).However, this needs to be corroborated in future studies where measures of general wellbeing are also included.
To deepen our understanding of why a substantial proportion young people, 34%, chose to cope with climate change in an avoidant way, it could also be beneficial in future studies to measure the different psychological mechanisms of moral disengagement, as well as to explore if these mechanisms are influenced by situational characteristics (Bandura 1990(Bandura , 2007;;Caravita et al. 2019).As previously stated, the avoidant group reported significantly lower levels of moral responsibility than the solution-oriented group.Moreover, there was also a less strong difference in moral responsibility between the uninvolved and the avoidant group, where the uninvolved group showed higher levels of responsibility than the avoidant.Therefore, it would be interesting to get a more in-depth understanding of this group and find out whether they use the different mechanisms involved in moral disengagement.

Being emotionally uninvolved
We identified one coping group where all coping strategies were used to a low extent, the uninvolved group.This finding is supported by previous research about coping in general, which has rather often found similar coping patterns of not using coping at all, or to combine passive strategies (Kavčič et al. 2022;Smith and Wallston 1996).This group was the smallest, comprising 24% of the participants.Since this group did not worry about climate change to the same extent as the solution-oriented group, perhaps the need to cope is not as urgent.
In addition to having lower outcome expectancy than the solution-oriented group, the uninvolved group reported lower levels of optimism than the other two groups and the highest degree of pessimism.For this group to feel more hopeful, less pessimistic, and feel that they can contribute, which most probably would lead to more climate-friendly action, it could be important to promote both problem-focused and meaning-focused coping that in earlier studies have been found to be positively related to optimism and outcome expectancy about climate change (Ojala 2012(Ojala , 2013;;Wullenkord and Ojala 2023).In addition, research has shown that young people who are inclined to either not cope at all with problems or to use passive strategies are at a higher risk for lower mental wellbeing (see Kavčič et al. 2022;Smith and Wallston 1996).More meaning-focused coping could perhaps be preventive (see Folkman 2008).

Limitations, strengths, and practical implications
One limitation of this study concerns data analysis and the use of the k-means clustering, which in one sense can be perceived as working too well, since this technique always generates clusters (Hair et al. 2019).It also makes it more difficult to generalize from sample to population and to replicate, because it relies to such a great extent on the sample at hand.Then again, most measures used in this study have been validated in previous research, which can be perceived as a strength in this cluster analysis.Both clustering techniques used in this study have pros and cons, with hierarchical methods being more suited for exploring, and better to use on moderate samples (below 300-400 participants, in Hair et al. 2019).In comparison to many other analytical methods, these clustering techniques, and the choice of deciding on final cluster solutions, also depends on the researchers' interpretations.Still, as this study is unique in exploring coping patterns regarding climate change in late adolescents, we found this technique useful as a starting point.Another limitation regarding the generalizability of this study is the fact that the sample of this study consisted only of late adolescents from Sweden.This is a limited geographic area, and the sample is a group that, as a whole, can be perceived as belonging to the WEIRD category (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) (Henrich Heine and Norenzayan 2010 p 29).Furthermore, as we collected data using self-reports there is always a risk for biased results.In addition, although food choices are one important proxy of engagement, there are many other forms of climate-change engagement that should also be considered.
We chose to compare the group means of the coping groups rather than trying to predict which factors could explain group belonging, because the focus of this study was to explore the characteristics of the participants belonging to the different subgroups.When a larger empirical research body on climate-change coping patterns among young people is established, we suggest that future research can be directed toward finding more complex relationships and potential interactions between factors that can help explain why late adolescents use different coping patterns, and how such combinations of coping strategies may influence engagement and well-being.
The main strength is that this study is unique in using a person-centered approach to examine patterns of climate-change coping among late adolescents, and furthermore to explore whether, and how, late adolescents characterized by unique patterns of coping differ regarding future-oriented emotions, moral responsibility, and climate-change engagement.
This study also has practical implications: Teachers, parents and other adults may promote problem-focused and meaning-focused coping in combination as a constructive path forward to both engagement and positive views and emotions regarding the future.In addition, the group of adolescents who are low on all coping strategies, high on pessimism, low on optimism concerning the future, indicates the need to take socio-emotional skills into account when educating, communicating, and talking about climate change with young people (see Cunningham et al. 2002).

Conclusions
In this study, instead of investigating climate-change coping strategies in isolation, we focused on patterns of coping among late adolescents.Making climate-friendly food choices was largely connected to using a combination of problem-and meaning-focused coping patterns.This combination of coping strategies was also related to being worried about climate change, feeling morally responsible for climate-change issues, and having positive outcome expectancies.On the other hand, high levels of meaning-focused coping in combination with strategies of de-emphasizing the threat, was connected to low levels of climate-friendly food choices, while having a rather positive outlook on the future.Using all the coping strategies described in this study to a relatively low extent was foremost related to a high degree of pessimism and low degree of optimism about the future.One main conclusion is that upcoming research should consider patterns of coping with climate change, since this more holistic approach appears important for comprehending the emotions young individuals feel regarding the future, their sense of moral responsibility, and their engagement with climate change.
F and Games-Howell post-hoc tests were used because the homogeneity of variance assumption was violated in some cases.a*Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level in comparison to Cluster 1, b*Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level in comparison to Cluster 2, and c*Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level in comparison to Cluster 3. a**Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.001 level in comparison to Cluster 1, b**Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.001 level in comparison to Cluster 2, and c**Mean difference is statistically significant at the 0.001 level in comparison to Cluster 3

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Bar chart of z-transformed mean values of the problem-focused, meaning-focused, and de-emphasizing coping strategies by cluster

Table 1
Standardized Means, Standard Deviations, and 95th Percentile Confidence Intervals for the coping strategies by Cluster