One in three Americans believe world will end in their lifetime, study finds

A new study highlighted by Deutsche Welle reveals a striking psychological trend: roughly one in three people surveyed in North America believe the world will end within their lifetime. Beyond its bleak implications, researchers say this belief significantly shapes how individuals respond to global crises such as war and climate change.

The research, led by social psychologist Matthew Billet of the University of California, Irvine, explored not just whether people expect an “end of the world,” but what that expectation actually means to them—and how it influences behavior.

“People believe all sorts of things about how the world’s going to end,” Billet said in a discussion with the hosts of Science Unscripted. He explained that interpretations vary widely: some imagine human extinction, others foresee the collapse or transformation of civilization, potentially even leading to a utopian future, while some envision total planetary destruction caused by events such as comets or solar flares.

Rather than treating these beliefs as abstract or fringe, the researchers set out to understand their real-world consequences. Their findings show that attitudes toward global risks are shaped by four key factors: how soon individuals believe the end will come, how they think it will happen, whether they see themselves as playing a role in it, and what they believe will follow afterward.

These perceptions have measurable effects on behavior. For instance, individuals who believe the end of the world is predetermined—such as the fulfillment of a divine prophecy—are less likely to support costly or demanding actions aimed at preventing global threats like climate change. Similarly, those who feel there is no shared future are less inclined to back collective policies, including higher taxes to fund environmental measures.

The study was extensive in scope. Researchers conducted six pilot studies involving 2,079 participants across the US and Canada, followed by a larger pre-registered study with 1,409 participants. Pre-registration is a methodological safeguard designed to improve transparency and reduce bias, particularly practices such as “Hypothesizing After Results are Known,” where hypotheses are adjusted to match outcomes rather than tested objectively.

Participants represented a wide cross-section of society. They came from diverse religious backgrounds—including Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and non-religious groups. The average age was 50, gender distribution was balanced, and while most identified as ethnically white, roughly a quarter identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian. Economic backgrounds were also varied.

To assess perceptions of global risk, participants were presented with five categories: economic threats such as supply chain collapse and debt crises; environmental risks including natural disasters and climate failure; geopolitical dangers like nuclear war and state collapse; societal risks such as pandemics and declining social cohesion; and technological threats including artificial intelligence and disinformation.

They were then asked how imminent the end of the world felt, whether it would be caused by human actions or external forces such as divine or cosmic intervention, whether they believed they had any personal control over such outcomes, and how they emotionally evaluated an apocalyptic scenario—whether as something negative or, in some cases, positive.

The results revealed a nuanced picture. For most people, the end of the world remains a distant and abstract concept. However, for approximately one-third of respondents, it feels immediate and personal.

“People who think the world is going to end in their lifetime tend to see global risks, like climate change, pandemics or AI, as more severe,” Billet said. “They fear them more than other people, and they want to take costly action to stop them.”

Yet the study also uncovered a paradox. Belief in the end of the world does not always lead to fatalism. In some cases, it can provide a psychological framework for coping with uncertainty.

Billet noted that some individuals view apocalyptic scenarios as final and catastrophic, such as total annihilation following nuclear war. Others, however, believe in a form of renewal—a post-apocalyptic restoration or even a utopia, particularly for those they consider morally worthy.

This distinction matters. According to the research, individuals who believe their actions influence outcomes—and who expect a positive transformation afterward—are better able to cope with exposure to global threats that others find overwhelming.

End-of-world thinking, Billet argues, is not just a personal belief but a collective psychological process. It reflects how societies grapple with vulnerability, uncertainty, and the fragility of modern civilization.

“If you believe that you have a personal role to play in the apocalypse, like your actions matter, and you believe that there’ll be a utopia afterwards, then you can tolerate exposure to threats that are distressing for other people,” he said. “There’s evidence that these beliefs help us cope with an uncertain world.”

By Tamilla Hasanova