Gender Differences In Young Adults’ Emotional Distress from Extreme Weather: The Roles of Perceived Climate Change Harm and Health Self-Efficacy

Background:
Climate change is increasingly linked to emotional distress (Ballew et al., 2024), yet prior studies have examined extreme weather exposure and perceived climate change harm to health separately (Nielsen Niño et al., 2025). This limits understanding of how climate experiences translate into emotional responses. The purpose of this study is to examine how perceived climate change harm to health and health self-efficacy shape emotional distress. Although gender differences in emotional responses are well established, it remains unclear whether such differences reflect distinct pathways.

Methods:
We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey 7 (HINTS 7), focusing on 1,304 young adults aged 19–39. Climate change experiences were measured by exposure to extreme weather events in the past 12 months. Perceived climate change harm to health captured beliefs about how climate change might affect personal health, while health self-efficacy reflected confidence in managing one’s health. Emotional distress was modeled as a latent construct indicated by hopelessness, nervousness, and worry. Age, race/ethnicity, and income were included as control variables. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and multi-group SEM were used to test the dual mediation model and examine gender differences.

Results:
The model showed fit (χ² = 182.409, df = 42, p < .001, CFI = .948, TLI = .912, RMSEA = .051), and measurement invariance across gender was supported. For females, exposure to extreme weather events was positively associated with perceived climate change harm to health (β = .344, p < .001) and negatively associated with health self-efficacy (β = −.114, p < .01). Health self-efficacy was negatively associated with emotional distress (β = −.250, p < .001). Extreme weather events also showed a direct association with emotional distress (β = .134, p < .001). Among males, exposure to extreme weather events was positively associated with perceived climate change harm to health (β = .359, p < .001), which was negatively associated with self-efficacy (β = −.158, p < .001). Self-efficacy was negatively associated with emotional distress (β = −.302, p < .001). Neither extreme weather events nor perceived climate change harm to health showed direct effects on emotional distress. Extreme weather events showed both direct (β = .134) and indirect effects (β = .043; total β = .177) among females, indicating partial mediation. Among males, only the indirect effect was significant (β = .063; total β = .152). A serial mediation pathway through perceived climate change harm to health and self-efficacy was identified in both groups.

Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that extreme weather events contribute to emotional distress through direct and indirect pathways, with gender differences in how these processes unfold. The findings suggest that perceived climate change harm to health and health self-efficacy are key mechanisms linking extreme weather events to emotional distress. They further suggest that gender-responsive climate communication and mental health strategies should strengthen confidence and ability to cope during climate instability. The findings underscore the importance of moving beyond exposure-focused approaches and adopting a mechanism-based perspective integrating perceived climate change harm to health and coping capacity.