Given the influx of new TV shows and movies featuring end-of-the-world scenarios, including The Walking Dead, Fallout, and even Project Hail Mary, the notion that impending doom is just around the corner seems more popular than ever. While we seem resigned to the idea that the world will end someday, how comfortable we are with that often depends on how close that doomsday is and on what it might mean for how we think, feel, and act right now.<\/p>\n
A recent study<\/a> by Matthew I. Billet and colleagues, published in the Journal of Personality<\/a> and Social Psychology, examines how close to the end many people think we are. Their research conclusion is difficult to ignore: Beliefs about the end of the world are not just abstract ideas. They can have a powerful influence on how people interpret global threats\u2014and what they are willing to do about them.<\/p>\n A Common but Overlooked Belief<\/p>\n Apocalyptic thinking is often dismissed as fringe. It isn’t. Roughly one in three Americans<\/a> believes the world will end within their lifetime. That belief spans religious and secular communities alike, uniting groups that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.<\/p>\n Despite these findings, psychology has largely treated these beliefs as background noise rather than as a central factor in how people understand risk. This new study addresses the issue by treating end-of-the-world thinking as a measurable, multidimensional construct with real-world consequences.<\/p>\n As Billet et al. put it, \u201c[W]e deploy a new, multidimensional measure of end-of-world beliefs to assess their prevalence, content, and correlates in a religiously diverse U.S. national sample.\u201d They then test a critical idea: that these beliefs predict how people perceive risk, tolerate it, and support extreme actions\u2014even after accounting for other well-known influences on risk perception.<\/p>\n Beyond a Simple \u201cEnd Is Near\u201d Mindset<\/p>\n A common assumption is that people who believe the end is near will simply feel more alarmed\u2014but not necessarily more motivated to act. That is a unidimensional view which the current researchers reject.<\/p>\n Instead, they argue that end-of-the-world beliefs are multidimensional, with several distinct psychological components that operate independently. These include:<\/p>\n Perceived closeness (how soon the end will occur) Each of these dimensions contributes in its own way to how people interpret global threats. Their existence also means that there is no single \u201capocalyptic mindset.\u201d There are multiple pathways from belief to behavior.<\/p>\n A Lens for Understanding Global Risk<\/p>\n The implications become clearer when we look at how people respond to major global risks\u2014economic instability, environmental collapse, geopolitical conflict, social disruption, and technological threats. Thus, end-of-the-world beliefs are not just one influence among many. They are unique predictors of how people respond to these risks\u2014and often outperform traditional explanations such as knowledge, experience, or cultural background.<\/p>\n The findings are striking:<\/p>\n Perceived closeness predicts stronger beliefs that risks are severe and supports more extreme responses. That last finding is particularly puzzling. Why would people who believe something beneficial will follow the end of the world still support drastic efforts to prevent it?<\/p>\n Billet and his team tested several possibilities\u2014ideological extremity, religious fundamentalism, and conspiratorial thinking\u2014but none fully explained the effect. Even when excluding people who actively wanted to hasten catastrophe, the pattern remained. In short, this is not a simple story. The psychology of apocalyptic belief contains contradictions that we do not yet fully understand.<\/p>\n One Narrative, Many Risks<\/p>\n Another key insight is that people do not form separate beliefs about each global threat. Instead, they tend to rely on a broader narrative about the fate of humanity\u2014one that shapes how they interpret multiple risks at once. What this means is that individuals who see one risk as apocalyptic are likely to see others the same way. These beliefs function less like isolated opinions and more like a general worldview through which new information is filtered.<\/p>\n This helps explain why debates about specific risks\u2014such as climate change<\/a>\u2014often feel intractable. People are not just arguing about evidence. They are operating from fundamentally different narratives about how the world works and where it is heading.<\/p>\n Why This Matters More Than Ever<\/p>\n Global risks today require coordinated action across cultures, nations, and belief systems. However, when people operate under varying underlying assumptions about the future, coordination becomes challenging.<\/p>\n The study highlights a sobering reality: The very beliefs people use to make sense of major challenges can undermine efforts to address them.<\/p>\n Apocalyptic religious narratives have been linked to resistance to vaccination. In each case, the issue is not just the risk itself but the story people tell about it.<\/p>\n Rethinking Risk Communication<\/p>\n If these findings hold, they have clear implications for how we communicate about global threats.<\/p>\n Simply presenting facts is not enough. Effective communication must also engage with the deeper narratives people hold about the future.<\/p>\n For some, emphasizing human agency may increase engagement. For others, highlighting long-term consequences may backfire if the timeline feels too distant\u2014or too inevitable.<\/p>\n Understanding these belief systems does not mean endorsing them. It means recognizing that they are part of the psychological landscape shaping public response.<\/p>\n The Bottom Line<\/p>\n End-of-the-world beliefs are common, diverse, and psychologically consequential.<\/p>\n They influence not only how people see the future but also how they act in the present\u2014whether they push for change, resist it, or disengage entirely. As the authors conclude, these beliefs are \u201cintertwined with various psychological and behavioral outcomes.\u201d That makes them more than a curiosity. They are a critical factor in how societies confront the challenges that may determine their future.<\/p>\n And that raises an uncomfortable possibility: When people argue about global risks, they may not just be disagreeing about the evidence. They may be disagreeing about how\u2014and whether\u2014the world will end.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Given the influx of new TV shows and movies featuring end-of-the-world scenarios, including The Walking Dead, Fallout, and…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":534913,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-534912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-kingdom","tag-gb","tag-great-britain","tag-greatbritain","tag-news","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=534912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534912\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/534913"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=534912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=534912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=534912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAnthropogenic causality (whether humans are responsible)
\nTheogenic causality (whether supernatural<\/a> forces are responsible)
\nPersonal control (whether individuals can influence outcomes)
\nEmotional valence (whether the end is seen as catastrophic or transformative)<\/p>\n
\nAnthropogenic causality is linked to seeing risks as more harmful and urgent.
\nTheogenic causality predicts lower support for extreme action, likely reflecting a sense that outcomes are beyond human control.
\nPersonal control increases willingness to act.
\nPositive emotional valence\u2014seeing the end as potentially beneficial\u2014predicts both greater risk tolerance and greater support for action.<\/p>\n
\nClimate-related \u201cend-of-the-world\u201d thinking can reduce motivation<\/a>, especially among younger people.
\nTechnological fears can either spur innovation<\/a> or paralyze action, depending on how they are framed.<\/p>\n