Why Telling People the World Is Ending Might Make Things Worse

Scientists and researchers are warning that using scary, end-of-the-world messages to get people to act on big problems — like climate change or the rise of artificial intelligence — may actually backfire. A large study involving nearly 60,000 people across 63 countries found that doom-filled messages were the worst at inspiring real action. Instead, hopeful and factual messages worked much better at getting people to do something about serious issues.

Think about all the big problems in the world today — climate change, war, political fights, and powerful new technology like AI. It can feel like there is too much going wrong all at once. Some people respond by sounding the alarm as loudly as possible, hoping that shocking others will push them to act. But experts say this approach can have the opposite effect and leave people feeling hopeless.

This feeling of doom is not new. Back in 1947, a group of scientists created something called the 'Doomsday Clock.' It was a picture of a clock on the cover of a magazine, and the hands moved closer to midnight whenever the world seemed more dangerous. At first, the clock was set to seven minutes before midnight. Today, it sits at just 85 seconds away.

People who spread these frightening warnings are sometimes called 'doomers.' They genuinely believe disaster is close and want others to feel the same urgency. But psychology professor Jay Van Bavel says there is a third way — caring deeply about these problems while also worrying that too much fear will stop people from acting at all.

Researchers already know a lot about how fear-based messages work. A scary message can sometimes move people to act, but only if it also makes people feel like they can still make a difference. If a message just makes someone feel helpless, they will likely do nothing. Van Bavel compares this to the old story of the boy who cried wolf: if you keep scaring people, they eventually stop listening.

The internet makes this problem even worse. For a long time, journalists have followed the idea that 'if it bleeds, it leads' — meaning bad news gets more attention than good news. Van Bavel and his team studied over 22,000 headlines and found that every extra negative word increased the number of people who clicked by 2.3%. Psychologists call this the 'negativity bias,' which means our brains pay more attention to bad things than good ones.

To test how messages affect real behavior, Van Bavel's team ran a huge study with 59,440 people in 63 countries. Climate experts created 11 different messages about climate change. One message was filled with terrifying descriptions of future disasters, while others calmly explained what scientists agree on or described effects on local communities.

The scary, doom-filled message was shared on social media more than any other — people found it gripping and wanted to pass it along. However, it was the single worst message for getting people to actually do something helpful, like planting trees or supporting climate policies. Being scared did not lead to being active.

The message that calmly explained what 99% of climate scientists agree on — that Earth is warming because of human activity — did much better on almost every measure. It gave people clear facts without making them feel crushed or hopeless. This shows that sharing the truth does not have to mean spreading fear.

Researchers also found that talking about the positive feelings that come from taking action is very powerful. Graduate student Danielle Goldwert found that when people were told that fighting climate change could bring hope and community, they were much more likely to get involved — voting, donating, or changing daily habits. As Van Bavel puts it, without hope, we are all destined to just scroll through bad news while the real problems go unsolved.