Climate ‘Apocalypse’ Posts Backfired After Viewers Learned This

"Climate apocalypse." "It's already too late." "Humanity is doomed."

If you use social media, you've probably scrolled past headlines like these. They're meant to shock us into action.

A new study from the University of Cambridge suggests they may do the opposite.

People saw these "doom" headlines as manipulative. And the more manipulative they found them, the less they planned to do for the climate.

The good news? A short video helped people spot doom headlines, without making them care less about climate change.

What is "climate doom"?

Climate doom means extreme, hopeless portrayals of climate change. Think "we're all going to die" rather than "here's what's happening and what we can do".

Some people share it to wake others up. But researchers worry it can backfire.

If people feel nothing can be done, they may give up. And if the message feels emotionally manipulative, they may stop trusting climate news altogether.

Until now, nobody had tested whether people can be taught to spot doom messaging, or what that does to their behaviour online.

Why it matters now

More and more of us get our news from social feeds. The paper cites figures showing 54% of US adults and 38% of UK adults get news through social media.

Climate news is a big part of that. Worldwide, 47% of people see climate change news every week, including 39% in the UK and 35% in the US.

Feeds reward strong emotions. So the most alarming climate posts are often the ones that travel furthest.

The experiment: a fake social media feed

Who took part

Researchers at the University of Cambridge recruited 521 adults in the UK through Prolific, an online research panel.

The sample was balanced by sex, age and political party. The study was preregistered, meaning the plan was published before the data were collected.

The "vaccine" video

People were randomly split into two groups.

The inoculation video worked like a vaccine. It showed a weakened dose of manipulation, so people could recognise the real thing later.

For example, it showed how a sad child can be used to lure viewers. Then it showed climate examples, like swapping "climate crisis" for "climate apocalypse", and how that might make you feel hopeless.

The feed

Next, everyone scrolled through a realistic social media simulator. It showed 12 headlines: 4 doom, 4 standard climate headlines, and 4 unrelated ones.

People could like, dislike, share, comment on or flag each post, just like on a real platform.

Finally, they rated how manipulative each climate headline was, on a scale from 1 to 7. They also reported how often they planned to take climate-friendly actions.

The results

Doom headlines felt manipulative

Even without any training, people rated doom headlines as more manipulative than standard climate headlines.

The video made that gap much bigger. Here are the average manipulation scores.

Notice the first row. The video didn't make people more suspicious of normal climate news.

It only made them more suspicious of doom.

That's important. A tool that made people distrust all climate news would do more harm than good.

It worked across politics

Right-leaning people rated all climate headlines as more manipulative than left-leaning people did.

But the video helped both groups by a similar amount. It didn't backfire on the right, which some researchers had feared.

Doom went with less action

Here's the part climate campaigners should notice.

The more manipulative someone found doom headlines, the less often they planned to take climate-friendly actions. That was true in both groups.

In other words, doom messaging itself seems to be the problem. The inoculation video didn't lower anyone's intentions.

What people did in the feed

The inoculated group engaged with doom posts a bit differently.

They disliked and flagged doom posts more, and shared them less. Likes and comments didn't change.

So the video didn't just change opinions. It changed how people treated doom content, in a way that could slow its spread.

What earlier research found

This study builds on years of research into inoculation, fear and climate emotions.

Inoculation works at scale

A 2022 study in Science Advances by the same Cambridge group tested short inoculation videos against misinformation.

Across six randomised studies with 6,464 people, the videos helped people recognise manipulation techniques and make better sharing decisions.

A field test on YouTube with 22,632 people found similar results. The benefits held across the political spectrum.

Fear works best with a way out

A 2022 meta-analysis combined 158 studies with 19,736 people on fear-based messages.

Fear appeals worked better when they also showed that a recommended action would actually help.

That fits the doom problem. "It's too late" is a fear appeal with no way out.

Hope about your own actions helps

A 2023 meta-analysis pooled 46 studies on hope and climate engagement.

Hope about being able to take action was strongly linked with more engagement. But hope based on climate change not being a problem went with less engagement.

Young people are already worried

A 2021 global survey of 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 in ten countries found widespread climate anxiety.

59% were very or extremely worried. More than 45% said their feelings about climate change hurt their daily life.

And 75% said the future is frightening.

For an audience already this worried, doom messaging may push people towards despair rather than action.

How it fits together

Put together, the evidence suggests fear alone isn't enough. People need to believe action is possible.

Climate doom removes that belief. This new study adds that audiences often see it as manipulation, and that a quick lesson can help them spot it.

How much should you trust this?

Promising. It's a careful, preregistered experiment, but it happened in a simulated feed.

What makes it convincing

• People were randomly assigned, and the plan was registered in advance.
• It measured real clicks in a social media simulator, not just survey answers.
• The key effect was large by psychology standards.
• The data and code are publicly available. The authors declared no competing interests.

What makes me cautious

• Two-thirds of the simulated feed was climate content, far more than a real feed.
• It measured plans to act, not actual climate-friendly behaviour.
• The effect was measured right after the video. We don't know how long it lasts.
• All participants were UK adults recruited online.
• The link between doom and lower intentions is a correlation. People who already care less might simply find doom more manipulative.

What this means for you

You can use the same trick the video teaches. Next time a climate headline makes your stomach drop, pause and ask a few questions:

• Is it trying to make me feel hopeless? Words like "apocalypse", "doomed" and "too late" are red flags.
• Does it offer any action? Good climate reporting tells you what's happening and what can be done.
• Would I share it if I stopped to think? Sharing doom content may spread despair more than awareness.
• Balance your feed. Follow sources that report solutions as well as problems.

A quick example

Here's the kind of switch the video taught people to notice.

A standard headline might say a heatwave broke temperature records and explain what cities are doing about it. A doom version of the same story might call it proof of a "climate apocalypse" that nobody can stop.

The facts can be identical. The difference is whether you're left informed, or just frightened and stuck.

If climate news is weighing on you, the World Health Organization explains why mental health matters in the climate response. The NHS also has practical tips for looking after your mental wellbeing.

If you're in crisis, please contact a person, not a chatbot.

In the US, call or text 988. In the UK and Ireland, you can call Samaritans on 116 123, any time.

Elsewhere, Find a Helpline lists free services. If someone is in immediate danger, call emergency services.

This 60 Minutes report explains how "prebunking" works against misinformation:

What we still don't know

1. How long does the effect last? Inoculation effects can fade without a "booster".
2. Does it change real behaviour? Recycling, voting and travel choices weren't measured.
3. Does doom actually reduce action? An experiment that exposes people to more or less doom would test cause and effect.
4. Does it work in a normal feed? Real feeds contain far less climate content.
5. Who does doom reach most? Young people with high climate anxiety may be most affected.
6. Can platforms use it? Short videos shown as ads have worked for other misinformation.

My take: doom is a bad sales pitch

What I like about this study is how practical it is. It tests a real problem in something close to a real feed.

And the message for anyone who writes about climate is clear. Scaring people with hopelessness doesn't seem to motivate them.

I'm cautious about the leap to real behaviour, because the study measured plans, not actions.

Still, it matches what earlier research suggests: fear works only when people see a way out. If you want people to act, show them what they can do.