BURST
The end is near.
At least that is what one-third of North Americans believe, according to a UBC study by social psychologist Matthew Billet, now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of California, Irvine.
Apocalyptic thinking, or the belief that some conclusive and unavoidable mass ending is imminent and will occur in our lifetime, is also a predictor of how we respond to existential threats to humanity.
Such beliefs, when tied to risk perception and response, could have dire consequences. After all, if it’s all about to end, why bother trying to fix it?
Billet’s study is the first to examine how people’s beliefs about the fate of the world affects their willingness to solve the problems we face.
The study, which drew on surveys of more than 3,400 people in the U.S. and Canada and is soon to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , finds apocalyptic thinking, once considered a fringe belief among cults and extremists, is now mainstream. The survey included Catholics, mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and non-religious individuals.
While end-of-the-world thinking has long been connected to religiosity, it is not so restricted.
“With religious people, there tends to be this idea that the world is going to be replenished after the apocalypse, and that the apocalypse is a step toward utopia,” Billet said.
The scientific community is statistically only half as likely to belief in God, but is still “a vocal alarm-ringer on the end of the world,” writes Billet.
“Scientists have the ‘ doomsday clock’ and climate scientists are ringing the alarm about the coming precipice. They may also believe the apocalypse is coming soon, but their story is completely different, with a completely different orientation,” said 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.”
What everyone seems to agree on, is that humans play some sort of important role in the coming end, said Billet. “Whether you think God and the prophecies are ultimately behind the whole thing, or whether you think it’s all in the hand of humans, everybody agrees humans play a central role.”
These beliefs are ways that we interpret our world and make sense of the threats facing it, said Billet.
According to the study, apocalyptic beliefs are diverse, and can motivate varying responses, translating into action or inaction on economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological fronts.
“One of the main things that affects how people see threats facing the world and what they want to do about it is what is your role personally to play in the end times,” said Billet.
Perception of personal control matters: People who believe the coming end is caused by humans, and that they have more control over it, support more extreme action to address threats, and more willingness to bear costs associated with mitigating those risks.
Those who believe divine forces will inevitably bring the end are less likely to support preventive measures they might see as futile, said Billet.
The study identified a framework of key elements that influence how people think and act:
• perceived closeness (how soon the world will end)
• anthropogenic causality (whether humans are the cause)
• theogenic causality (whether supernatural or divine forces are the cause)
• personal control (whether people feel they have some influence over the coming event)
• emotional valence (what comes after the end, whether it is good or bad)
“The stories that we tell about our world matter, and can colour the way we see the concrete issues we face as an species,” said Billet.
Groups that see the world — or the end of it — differently must find shared solutions to address global issues like climate change, nuclear war, AI and pandemic preparedness.
“If we are aware of the cultural baggage we bring to the table, we can make sure that doesn’t stop our alliances from forming and building consensus around existential threats,” said Billet.