We’re living in a time of multiple, distinct yet overlapping crises and threats. Our journalist, Ella Rhodes, asks if psychology can help us to find a way to understand our strange new world and foster positive change.
03 July 2026
By
Ella RhodesEvery generation has lived through frightening times. Ancient civilisations rose and fell, modern history is pockmarked by wars, pandemics, genocide, inequality and struggle. But our current time feels distinct – we're more aware than ever of what is happening to our climate, conflict rages across the globe, and we are still struggling with the fallout from the Covid pandemic. Yet even in this backdrop of existential threat, we have little choice but to carry on with our normal lives – finding work, keeping our families housed and fed, paying the bills. Is it any wonder most of us feel powerless in the face of the polycrisis?
The World Economic Forum's 2023 Global Risks Report defines the polycrisis as situations where crises interact in a way where their overall impact 'far exceeds the sum of each part'. Like many, I often wonder what can help us to live in a time like this. So, I asked psychologists focusing on these current threats for their thoughts.
The climate crisis
According to UK government surveys, around 80 per cent of people say they are very or fairly concerned about climate change. This is a pattern seen across the globe, with wide support for taking action. Our concern also impacts our behaviour – Whitmore-Williams Professor of Psychology Susan Clayton from The College of Wooster in Ohio tells me that distress about the climate impacts people's decision-making in all areas of life, including careers, education, housing and finances. Sometimes, this distress can feel so all-consuming that we freeze.
'People are overwhelmed by the multiple existential threats we seem to be facing, and one response is just to tamp down on their emotional response and avoid thinking about the issues,' says Clayton. 'Of course, in the long run, avoidance is not an effective strategy'.
But, if we feel powerless to do anything about it, and the crisis is being caused by structural and global stressors, surely, as individuals, there's nothing we can do but avoid?
'Individual behaviour alone will not stop climate change,' agrees Clayton, but she says there is evidence that working together to campaign for systemic change can help give us more sense of control. 'There are ways of communicating about climate change which can help people to take action. Feeling our core values are at risk, having activist role models, and communicating in a way that emphasises personal risk can also help to drive people to work towards change. It's also important not to dismiss anger', adds Clayton. It can be a 'powerfully energising emotion'.
Crisis of community
If, as Clayton states, anger can promote positive action, is there a downside to us collectively drawing on this resource to demand change? According to Aleksandra Cichocka, Professor of Political Psychology at the University of Kent, there is.
'Feeling out of control and frustrated about the state of social affairs can make people cling to other things that make them feel more positively about themselves, at least in the short term,' she tells me.
'For example, they may want to invest in a strong positive image of their own country.' This concept is known as 'collective narcissism', explains Cichocka – it's a belief that one's own country is superior, exceptional and deserving of privileged treatment. Cichocka has found that frustrations surrounding our fundamental needs can be related to higher collective narcissism, with people feeling the need to emphasise their country's strength and independence.
However, high levels of collective narcissism are not necessarily related to building a sense of community or supporting others who live in their country, Cichocka tells me. 'We have found that people were willing to support policies that would make their country look good in the international arena, even if they might hurt fellow citizens. One example was Donald Trump's proposal to slow down testing for COVID-19. Our research found people high in collective narcissism would support that policy even if they were aware that it meant the virus would be more difficult to contain, simply because it would mean the US would look better in terms of infection rates.'
So how do we emerge from the paradoxical state where the building of community, belonging, and connection that could help people restore a sense of control is threatened by collective narcissism? Perhaps we start by looking at those in power.
Cichocka explains that some political leaders, and those leading social movements, are particularly skilled at making people feel more disadvantaged than they truly are.
'Consider societal groups that have traditionally been more privileged, such as men. Even though they may have lost some status, they still enjoy a privileged position in our society. Yet certain messages may make them feel like their status is threatened and that could make them feel vulnerable, even if this is objectively not the case. National populist leaders, for example, are skilful at changing the narrative to make people feel at a disadvantage. This isn't to say that actual, objective threats don't influence people's attitudes and behaviours, but it is often about how people perceive them. Around 20 years ago, we saw fewer differences between Republicans and Democrats in the US, for example, in terms of how they viewed national identities. Now, the way they construct identity and wider societal issues is diverging. In this way, certain threats and issues are seen as more suitable to be concerned about depending on your political affiliation… and obviously, political leaders give cues with respect to which of them are worth your attention, and then motivated processes kick in. People might, for example, downplay certain statistics in favour of others.'
The misinformation crisis
As Cichocka points out, if those in charge are making decisions about the information we consume and how it is shaped, how do we keep ourselves safe in such a minefield of misinformation?
Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Cambridge, Sander van der Linden, is the ideal expert to turn to on the subject. He is known for his work on approaches to providing psychological 'vaccination' against misinformation. I ask him how we can cope when information about these crises is coming at us constantly.
Humans tend to have a 'finite pool of worry', he explains. 'In surveys that ask people to rank the most important threats, what you see is that when there are things going on in people's lives that affect them in a very visceral way, whether it's unemployment or a pandemic, issues like climate change get replaced by shorter-term threats. People can't be fully engaged with long-term risks when there are short-term disasters happening too. The finite pool of things that people can worry about differs from person to person, but psychologically, people cope by parking certain threats or crises.'
Van der Linden agrees that when regimes take over popular media and education systems, it makes it incredibly difficult to think critically for ourselves. 'In the US, this issue becomes more and more relevant every day, and what's going on there in terms of authoritarianism is also spilling over to the UK.
'When people are manipulated, they make choices they wouldn't have made otherwise'
Across the world, there is decreasing freedom of the press. In the UK, much of the media is owned by a small number of companies, which makes the infrastructure more vulnerable to takeovers. There aren't just issues with trust in the media… it spills over to scientists and experts in so many areas. Trust in each other is the fabric of democracy. I'd say the polycrisis impacts human interaction on many different dimensions in quite negative ways.'
One main concern van der Linden points to is the democratic backsliding we see across the globe. He stresses that authoritarian regimes aim to create political apathy. 'It's a way for regimes to gain soft power. If we've learnt any lessons from history and standing up to authoritarianism, it is not to engage in anticipatory obedience or not capitulate to what an authoritarian government is expected to demand. The idea is people should not think "well, this is going to happen anyway, so we may as well sacrifice ourselves in advance, to control what we're giving up a little bit before they take it all away."'
Speaking about his main area of misinformation research, van der Linden says the proliferation of false and misleading information in the media and online limits people's agency. 'When people are manipulated, they make choices they wouldn't have made otherwise. Some people suggest that intervening in misinformation restricts people's freedom, but I don't think that can be the case when people's choices and environments are polluted by false information which they don't know about.'
Van der Linden's work has made him the target of harassment from hostile actors, and his colleagues have faced physical threats due to their research. 'That's why I'm doing more of this than ever,' he says, 'talking about the value of science and why we should trust it, and why science matters for policy. I think it's important for scientists and psychologists to speak about these things, so the public has a better idea of the value of their tax money being spent on science.'
Collective action
We've heard that social processes can push people apart. But what, if anything, can we do to bring us further together? At the core of Dr Sara Vestergren's (from the University of Reading) research is looking at the power of collective action, including protests and activism. 'We do know that taking action collectively is beneficial psychologically,' she explains. 'First of all, there is shared identity – helping to build a support system where you support others and they support you, which is empowering. Having relationships and bonds and feeling social connectedness makes you feel good.
'As well as improving our psychological wellbeing, collective action is pretty much behind every social change, including getting votes for women, and improving equality. Gaining equality has some way to go, but collective action has helped us to step closer to it.'
Vestergren explains that there is an over-reliance on targeting individual behaviour as a way to affect social change. 'It's an easy way out. If you put the responsibility on the individual, then the system doesn't need to change. For example, it's a lot easier to tell people they need to recycle to help with the climate crisis, but there's a lot of other things that require bigger changes and support from the government.'
Vestergren says that Social Psychology can offer a lot by helping people to work together to effect change. 'There are three main variables that are important for getting involved in collective action. People need to have a feeling that a social movement is something they belong to, and it needs to align with our values. Then you might start getting involved and develop a shared identity, which is important for sustained collective action. There is also usually a perceived, preferably collective, injustice. The third variable comes from Resource Mobilisation Theory, and that's collective efficacy; you need to feel like you can achieve something.'
Despite the social change that comes about through collective action and the individual psychological and physical benefits, activists are judged in a negative way. 'There are barriers to collective action, often we don't think about what we've actually achieved in activism,' says Vestergren. She points to groups such as Insulate Britain, which blockaded UK motorways, ports and roads in London and were met with a less than favourable response in the UK press. However, what isn't as well documented is that a review of these protests, by the Social Change Lab, found this action raised a debate on UK home insulation and may have had a role in bringing about a £1 billion home insulation policy from the government.
While there are risks for getting involved in collective action – particularly in the form of protests – Vestergren says that collective action can take less physical forms. 'There are a lot of privileged people, including myself, who have a responsibility to act and support where others can't and provide opportunities to act.'
A route out of despair
So how do we navigate feelings of despair and hopelessness in these most difficult of times? Do the experts have any takeaways that can help us? Cichocka accepts 'there is no one simple solution'. While she used to believe education and information could be the answer, she is aware that information alone won't help if people are not motivated to hear it. 'I think we need to work across disciplines and sectors to develop better theories and interventions that would tackle issues more systematically', she says, 'but it has to go hand in hand with policy and structural changes.'
Van der Linden says his approach to tackling misinformation through inoculation was developed 'by the people, for the people'. He is hopeful that, 'If enough people are pre-bunked or vaccinated against misinformation, then that misinformation won't have a chance to spread. I think the way to do that is through interpersonal or social inoculation,' he says. 'People can help to inoculate their friends, neighbours and colleagues… just as we can pass on misinformation to others, we can pass on inoculation.'
Sara Vestergren emphasises the importance of collective action, not only because of its individual benefits, but also the broader societal changes it can bring about. 'Many peaceful protests go on, which aren't reported because there's no violence or headlines. People forget that signing a petition or sharing information on social media can also be collective.
If you look online for causes you'd like to get involved with, there will be groups in your community. If you want to do more, to join a group, there are lots of networks online. Get involved by educating yourself, because if you're educated, you're also likely to spread that knowledge.'
Taking back control
If I've learnt anything from the psychologists who spoke to me, not giving in to despair and regaining a feeling of control feels the most vital. Taking some control of how we cope with risks and focusing on really improving our communities, rather than clinging to false images of our countries as perfect and all-powerful, can help us move away from collective narcissism.
There is a silver lining, though. Each generation tends to believe that society marched steadily forward until quite recently, only to take a sudden turn for the worse. It's a pattern that shows up again and again: people look back on the past as a period of coherence, shared values, and steady improvement, while the present feels more fractured, uncertain, and off course. Tim Wildschut and Constantine Sedikides (University of Southampton) have studied this recurring perception and given it a name: declinism.
'Cultural shifts, new technologies, and changing norms can make the world seem unfamiliar, even destabilising, especially when they challenge what once felt fixed,' they told me. 'Memory also plays tricks, smoothing over past tensions and amplifying present anxieties, so that yesterday appears more orderly than it truly was. It's worth recognising this tendency and making a conscious effort not to let it influence our outlook more than it deserves.'
So, my closing message to you. Educate yourself about misinformation, refuse to spread it and support others to do the same: this can give us agency over both our information and our physical environments. And take action as a collective, through protest and activism, whether in real life or online, to help us affect the change we truly want to see in the world.
SOURCE:
