In an era of climate anxiety, geopolitical tensions and rapidly advancing artificial intelligence, apocalyptic thinking is no longer confined to the fringes of society, according to new research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .
"Belief in the end of the world is surprisingly common across North America, and it's significantly influencing how people interpret and respond to the most pressing threats facing humanity," said Dr. Matthew I. Billet, the study's lead author who conducted the research as a PhD candidate in UBC's psychology department. He is now a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Irvine.
The research draws on surveys of more than 3,400 people in the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S. national sample of 1,409 respondents, nearly one‑third said they believe the world will end within their lifetime.
In both Canada and the U.S., the study shows that people think about the end of the world in multiple ways—including when it might happen, who or what would cause it, and whether it is something to fear or welcome. In the U.S., these beliefs were strongly linked to how people perceive and respond to global risks like climate change, pandemics, nuclear conflict and emerging technologies. Because Canadians think about the end of the world in similar ways, these beliefs may also influence how global risks are understood in Canada, even though this was not directly tested.
Five dimensions of the apocalypse
Billet and his UBC colleagues developed a comprehensive psychological measure of end-of-world beliefs, identifying five key dimensions that matter for how people think and act:
- perceived closeness (how soon the end will arrive)
- anthropogenic causality (whether humans will cause it)
- theogenic causality (whether divine or supernatural forces will cause it)
- personal control (how much influence one personally has over the outcome)
- emotional valence (whether the end will ultimately be good or bad)
"Different narratives people believe about the end of the world can lead to very different responses to societal issues," said Dr. Billet. "Someone who believes humans are causing the apocalypse through climate change will respond very differently to environmental policy than someone who believes the end times are controlled by divine prophecy."
The research revealed differences across religious denominations.
"Everyone agrees on one thing: We humans play an important role in the fate of our species," said Dr. Billet. "This was as true for the religious as it was for the non-religious. However, there were also differences between religious denominations that were quite stark. These differences point to how religion—and culture more broadly—can shape how we fundamentally view the world and our collective future."
The study's most significant finding may be how such beliefs translate into action, or inaction.
The researchers asked participants about five categories of global existential risks identified by the World Economic Forum: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.
Those who believed the end is near and that humans are causing it perceived greater risk and supported more extreme action to address threats. However, those who believed divine forces control the apocalypse were less likely to support preventive measures.
Why it matters
The research comes at a critical moment when global coordination is essential to address existential threats, said Dr. Billet.
"These differences can create disagreements across cultural groups that make it difficult to coordinate responses to global risks, both within countries and between countries. Today, beliefs about accepting the Mark of the Beast from the Last Days undermine efforts at mass vaccination against COVID-19. The dread of climate apocalypse undermines young people's motivation to tackle climate change and to bring children into this world."
Rather than dismissing apocalyptic thinking as irrational, Dr. Billet argues that understanding these beliefs is essential for effective communication and policy-making in an increasingly divided society.
"Whether or not any particular apocalyptic narrative is accurate, they are still consequential for how populations confront concrete risks," he said. "If we want to build consensus around addressing climate change, AI safety or pandemic preparedness, we need to understand how different communities are interpreting these threats through their own cultural lenses. In a world facing genuine catastrophic risks, that understanding has never been more important."
Dr. Billet's co-authors include Dr. Azim Shariff and Dr. Ara Norenzayan of UBC, and Dr. Cindel J.M. White of York University.
