Neurocognitive Mechanisms and Psychological Biases in the Context of Climate Change
By Richelle Antonythasan, Cassie Ephrem, Chichi Ohaka, Bhavini Patel, Daniela Reyes Ladino
Background and Introduction
Climate change poses severe threats to global stability, yet public responses remain inconsistent despite strong scientific consensus. Many underestimate its severity, react defensively to emotionally charged or identity-threatening information, or feel helpless, which reflects psychological and not just environmental barriers (Tyson and Kennedy 2024). This review article explores why individuals ignore or resist climate information by examining neurocognitive processes involved in threat detection, time valuation, and sense of agency. Psychological processes are also discussed with biases such as confirmation bias, temporal discounting, optimism bias, the sunk-cost fallacy, and the bystander effect. Together, these mechanisms shape climate psychology and contribute to inaction.
Inside the Climate-Brain Freeze
A major part of the climate inaction problem lies in how our brains are wired, namely through neurocognitive mechanisms, the integrated brain processes that translate perception into decision-making (Dricu and Frühholz 2019). Our brains are experts at short-term survival. They have difficulty processing long-term existential threats, creating a mismatch that drives inaction. This problem is further framed by the reciprocal relationship between the brain and environment (Figure 1). The amygdala, our threat detector, responds weakly to abstract risks like climate change (Richelli et al. 2025). Meanwhile, dopamine circuits prioritize short-term rewards (Gregorios-Pippas et al. 2009). The fronto-parietal network is ineffective when consequences are delayed or diffused (Zito et al. 2020). These mechanisms shape the psychological biases that drive behavioural disengagement.
Figure 1: Reciprocal relationship between the brain and the changing environment. This framework illustrates how climate change can influence the brain through environmental stressors such as extreme weather, pollution, and anxiety (Path A), while neural and psychological processes, including decision-making and behaviour change, shape environmental outcomes (Path B) (Adapted from Doell et al. 2023).
Behavioural Biases In Relation to Climate Inaction
Shaped by early survival instincts, psychological biases contribute to climate inaction. Temporal discounting prioritizes immediate convenience and comfort over long-term risks. Optimism bias fuels ignorance, with the belief that negative events are less likely to affect oneself (Beattie 2018). Confirmation bias encourages individuals to focus on information reinforcing existing views, causing skeptics to dismiss scientific evidence (Suzuki and Yamamoto 2021). The sunk-cost fallacy drives governments and industries to cling to economic investments in fossil fuel infrastructure rather than start from scratch with sustainable alternatives (Arbuthnott and Dolter 2013). Finally, the bystander effect creates collective inaction by avoiding accountability (Petersen 2019). Politically, economically, and socially, these biases delay addressing climate change.
Connecting Neurocognitive Mechanisms and Psychological Biases
Bridging the gap between an individual’s neurological mechanisms and their psychological biases can help explain individual behavioural choices. This can guide climate psychologists to better understand climate change inaction and deniability through a psychological lens (Gifford 2011). This review investigates two examples of the integration of neurocognitive and psychological mechanisms in climate change domains. First, it outlines a study of how the amygdala responds to climate change imagery, reinforcing confirmation bias (Carlson et al. 2020). Second, it summarizes the results of a survey done in Portugal of self-reported environmentalism, demonstrating how neurological mechanisms behind temporal discounting are playing a part in how people prioritize sustainable behaviours (Vieira et al. 2023).
Limitations of the Psychological Lens
While the psychological lens offers a unique perspective on climate change, its individual-focused approach can overlook macro-level variables that contribute to climate change inaction (Xiang et al. 2019). Owing to the relatively young field of climate psychology, there remain debates over distinctions between certain behavioural patterns (Gurtner and Moser 2024). Neurocognitive mechanisms provide the biological underpinnings behind these psychological concepts, which help in overcoming this burden (Todorova et al. 2025). Even still, imaging and funding constraints limit study sizes in neuroscience research (Picciotto 2018). As well, psychological study groups can also lack diverse representations due to sampling inconveniences. (Sanbonmatsu et al. 2021). Both restrictions diminish the universality of the results, limiting how psychology can be used in sustainable strategies.
References
Arbuthnott, Katherine D., and Brett Dolter. 2013. “Escalation of Commitment to Fossil Fuels.” Ecological Economics 89 (May): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.004.
Beattie, Geoffrey. 2018. “Optimism Bias and Climate Change.” The British Academy. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/review/33/optimism-bias-and-climate-change/.
Carlson, Joshua M., Hannah Kaull, Mason Steinhauer, Abbey Zigarac, and Jacqueline Cammarata. 2020. “Paying Attention to Climate Change: Positive Images of Climate Change Solutions Capture Attention.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 71 (October): 101477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101477.
Doell, Kimberly C., Marc G. Berman, Gregory N. Bratman, et al. 2023. “Leveraging Neuroscience for Climate Change Research.” Nature Climate Change 13 (12): 1288–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01857-4.
Dricu, Mihai, and Sascha Frühholz. 2019. “A Neurocognitive Model of Perceptual Decision‐making on Emotional Signals.” Human Brain Mapping 41 (6): 1532–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24893.
Gifford, Robert. 2011. “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation.” American Psychologist (Washington, US) 66 (4): 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566.
Gregorios-Pippas, Lucy, Philippe N. Tobler, and Wolfram Schultz. 2009. “Short-Term Temporal Discounting of Reward Value in Human Ventral Striatum.” Journal of Neurophysiology 101 (3): 1507–23. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90730.2008.
Gurtner, Lilla M., and Stephanie Moser. 2024. “The Where, How, and Who of Mitigating Climate Change: A Targeted Research Agenda for Psychology.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 94 (March): 102250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102250.
Petersen, Holly-Anna. 2019. “Climate Justice and the Bystander Effect.” January 2. https://theecologist.org/2019/jan/02/climate-justice-and-bystander-effect.
Picciotto, Marina. 2018. “Analytical Transparency and Reproducibility in Human Neuroimaging Studies.” Editorial. Journal of Neuroscience 38 (14): 3375–76. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0424-18.2018.
Richelli, Letizia, Maria Arioli, and Nicola Canessa. 2025. “Neurosustainability: A Scoping Review on the Neuro-Cognitive Bases of Sustainable Decision-Making.” Brain Sciences 15 (7): 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15070678.
Sanbonmatsu, David M., Emily H. Cooley, and Jonathan E. Butner. 2021. “The Impact of Complexity on Methods and Findings in Psychological Science.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (January): 580111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580111.
Suzuki, Masaki, and Yusuke Yamamoto. 2021. “Characterizing the Influence of Confirmation Bias on Web Search Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (December): 771948. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771948.
Todorova, Boryana, Maximilian O Steininger, Claus Lamm, and Kimberly C Doell. 2025. “Neuroscience and Climate Action: Intersecting Pathways for Brain and Planetary Health.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 63 (June): 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101522.
Tyson, Alec, and Brain Kennedy. 2024. “How Americans View Climate Change and Policies to Address the Issue.” Pew Research Center, December 9. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/12/09/how-americans-view-climate-change-and-policies-to-address-the-issue/
Vieira, João, São Luís Castro, and Alessandra S. Souza. 2023. “Psychological Barriers Moderate the Attitude-Behavior Gap for Climate Change.” PLOS ONE 18 (7): e0287404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287404.
Xiang, Peng, Haibo Zhang, Liuna Geng, Kexin Zhou, and Yuping Wu. 2019. “Individualist–Collectivist Differences in Climate Change Inaction: The Role of Perceived Intractability.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (February): 187. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00187.
Zito, Giuseppe A., Roland Wiest, and Selma Aybek. 2020. “Neural Correlates of Sense of Agency in Motor Control: A Neuroimaging Meta-Analysis.” PLoS ONE 15 (6): e0234321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234321.