Thawing the climate freeze: a trauma-informed heuristic for collective climate disengagement

1 Introduction

Climate change and biodiversity loss are advancing amid extensive scientific evidence and public concern. Yet concern does not reliably translate into sustained individual or collective action. Several factors shape this gap. These include political polarization, unequal exposure to climate risk, fossil-fuel dependence, economic constraints, institutional failures, and uneven access to meaningful action. Psychological processes should therefore not be treated as substitutes for structural explanation; they are one interacting layer in a multi-level conservation problem (Clayton, 2020; Nallajerla and Engstrom, 2026).

Most existing psychological work on climate change looks at individuals one at a time, measuring their anxiety, their coping style, or their intentions. This approach misses something important. Climate change is not only something that happens to separate people, it plays out through relationships, institutions, and shared systems. Collective agency, meaning a group’s sense that it can act together and change an outcome, is not simply the sum of individual attitudes. It can emerge from how people interact and organize together, in ways that individual level measures do not capture (Bandura, 2000). Systemic thinking matters here too, because the conditions that shape climate action, such as policy, media, and community networks, operate above the level of any one person (Swim et al., 2011). A framework focused only on individuals can therefore miss how both disengagement and action develop through group level and system level processes, not only through personal psychology.

This Perspective examines one such layer. It looks at public patterns of emotional numbing, avoidance, and disengagement in relation to ecological loss. A newer body of work has begun to reframe climate change itself as a source of collective trauma rather than merely a cause of individual distress (Woodbury, 2019; Bednarek, 2021). This work also names “collective dissociation” as one manifestation of this at the societal level, a coping mechanism marked by collective apathy or numbing in response to an overwhelming existential threat (Shomuyiwa and Lucero-Prisno, 2025). Nallajerla and Engstrom (2026) integrate collective trauma and ecological systems theory across individual, family, community, societal, and intergenerational levels. They explicitly note that limited empirical literature exists at the exo, macro, and chrono levels, and call for future work to fill that gap. This Perspective responds to that call directly. Rather than proposing a new multilevel framework, it specifies a testable heuristic, grounded in individual-level trauma and threat-regulation theory, for the mechanism underlying the macro-level pattern they name, and proposes measurement and intervention research to evaluate it.

A parallel literature approaches the same broad puzzle through the concept of social inertia. Gifford (2011) catalogs psychological barriers, such as limited cognition, ideological worldviews, and sunk-cost effects, that keep individuals from acting on climate concern. Brulle and Norgaard (2019) go further, arguing that climate change constitutes a cultural trauma, and that societies defend against it through social inertia at individual, institutional, and societal levels, drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) concepts of habitus, field, and doxa. Their account explains resistance to change as a property of social systems defending existing structures. The heuristic proposed here differs in mechanism and aim. It borrows individual-level threat-regulation and dissociation theory to generate a testable psychological pattern, collective climate disengagement. This is oriented toward a measurement and intervention agenda rather than theoretical synthesis.

Here, collective climate disengagement is defined as a proposed, observable pattern in which awareness of climate and ecological threat coexists with affective distancing, avoidance of sustained engagement, and reduced perceived capacity for meaningful individual or collective action. It overlaps with, but is not identical to, denial, low climate efficacy, climate anxiety, or political disengagement. The Climate Change Anxiety Scale (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020) and the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (Hogg et al., 2021), for example, index the intensity and functional impairment of climate-related worry. Collective climate disengagement as proposed here targets something different, the co-occurrence of registered concern with affective distancing and reduced perceived efficacy, a pattern existing anxiety measures are not designed to capture directly. The aim is to offer a precise heuristic that can guide measurement and intervention research, while retaining the distinction between individual clinical constructs and social-level processes.

2 A trauma-informed heuristic

Individual trauma frameworks describe how overwhelming or inescapable threat can be associated with altered arousal, narrowed attention, avoidance, and compartmentalization of distressing material (van der Kolk, 2014). Polyvagal Theory has been influential in clinical discussions of threat and regulation (Porges, 2011). Several of its evolutionary and neurophysiological claims, however, remain debated. It is used here only as one interpretive vocabulary, not as a settled explanation of climate-related behavior.

Figure 1 depicts the proposed model. Chronic, diffuse ecological threat and structural conditions, such as inequality, institutional failures, political power, and access to action, are proposed to interact and contribute to climate-related overwhelm. This overwhelm is proposed to relate to affective distancing, avoidance, and reduced perceived efficacy, the mediating pathway to reduced sustained engagement. Social support, facilitated emotional processing, collective efficacy, and accessible action opportunities are proposed to moderate this pathway.

We call this a heuristic rather than a theory because it is meant to guide thinking and generate testable questions, not to describe a mechanism that has already been shown to exist. Individual trauma models were built to explain what happens inside one person’s nervous system (Levine, 1997; Porges, 2011; van der Kolk, 2014). Applying them directly to a whole society would claim more than we actually know. Treating the idea as a heuristic instead lets us borrow useful language from clinical psychology without claiming that a population behaves exactly like one traumatized person. This has real advantages. It keeps the model open to revision as evidence comes in, rather than locking us into a claim we would later have to defend or retract. It also lets this framework sit alongside structural and political explanations instead of replacing them, since a heuristic does not need to be the whole explanation to be useful.

Structural dissociation theory distinguishes ordinary functioning from trauma-linked emotional material that remains difficult to integrate (Van der Hart et al., 2006). At the social level, the proposed analogy is limited. Institutions, media, consumption routines, and everyday interaction can continue while grief, fear, guilt, and awareness of ecological loss receive little sustained collective processing. This does not mean that a society literally dissociates. It means that a patterned separation between knowledge, emotion, and action may be analytically useful.

The heuristic also predicts heterogeneity. Climate engagement is shaped by culture, material security, local exposure, political power, Indigenous and local knowledge, historical responsibility, and access to collective infrastructures for action (Thomas et al., 2019; Mikulewicz et al., 2023). A trauma-informed account is strongest when it complements rather than individualizes these determinants. The trauma vocabulary used above is retained for its heuristic and communicative value. The substantive claim of this Perspective is the operational construct proposed in Section 1, which does not require the clinical framing to be tested or acted upon.

3 From numbing to action

Ecological grief may be a functional response to environmental loss, rather than simply a symptom to eliminate (Cunsolo and Ellis, 2018; Albrecht, 2019; Hickman et al., 2021; Comtesse et al., 2021). When grief is avoided or socially unsupported, affective connection to threatened places and species may weaken. When it is acknowledged and held collectively, it may instead coexist with care, solidarity, and action. This proposition requires empirical testing across populations and settings.

The communication implication here is not that conservation messaging should dilute or conceal scientific risk. Evidence on fear appeals in climate communication is mixed, and effects on actual behavior remain uncertain. A more defensible proposition is that threat information should be paired with credible, proportionate opportunities for individual and collective efficacy, social support, and institutional action. Anger, for example, has shown different associations with climate action than eco-anxiety and eco-depression (Stanley et al., 2021).

This Perspective does not claim that fear necessarily produces collective shutdown. It proposes something narrower. Messages emphasizing threat without agency may be less helpful for audiences already experiencing overwhelm. Message effects should be tested across emotional states, social positions, and available routes to action.

4 Community support as a research priority

Climate cafés and related facilitated spaces offer settings in which people can discuss climate-related emotions without needing to debate or solve problems right away. Their value may lie in supporting emotional acknowledgment, social connection, and perceived agency. The existing literature maps this practice more clearly than it proves its effects. These formats are best described as promising candidates for evaluation, not as validated interventions (De Jong et al., 2025).

Trauma-informed group approaches may include paced discussion, grounding practices, mutual support, and links to concrete civic or conservation opportunities. The ethical aim is not to treat understandable distress as pathology. It is also not to make communities responsible for solving structural harms through emotional adjustment. Conservation organizations could instead test whether well-facilitated spaces improve engagement, collective efficacy, well-being, and participation when paired with material and political opportunities for action.

5 Discussion and future directions

This Perspective advances a limited, trauma-informed heuristic for collective climate disengagement. Its contribution is not a new explanation of climate inaction. It is a bridge. It connects climate-related numbing, ecological grief, and perceived agency, concepts that have largely been discussed separately, in different literatures, using different vocabularies. Together, these connect to a single set of empirical questions that conservation social science can investigate directly. The value of the heuristic lies less in the trauma framing itself than in the operational construct it motivates. That construct stands or falls on its own measurement properties, not on the plausibility of the underlying analogy. The model should be rejected or revised if its proposed components do not show distinct measurement properties, behavioral correlates, or intervention relevance.

This Perspective has clear limitations. It synthesizes existing literatures rather than reporting new data. Its central construct, collective climate disengagement, remains undemonstrated pending the measurement work outlined below. The heuristic also risks being read more literally than intended, despite the qualifications offered in Section 2. The trauma vocabulary should be treated as illustrative rather than diagnostic. This account has been developed primarily with reference to populations and literatures in which the underlying constructs, such as eco-anxiety, climate grief, and collective efficacy, have already been studied. Whether the proposed pattern holds, or takes a different shape, in contexts with different relationships to climate exposure, historical responsibility, and collective memory is an open empirical question rather than an assumption of the model.

Future research should address five priorities. (1) Measures distinguishing collective climate disengagement from anxiety, avoidance, denial, and low collective efficacy should be developed and validated, drawing on and extending existing instruments such as the Climate Change Anxiety Scale and the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale rather than treating the new construct as unrelated to them. (2) Longitudinal links among emotional processing, efficacy, social support, and conservation behavior warrant testing through moderated-mediation designs consistent with the pathway proposed in Figure 1, with particular attention to whether affective distancing precedes or follows reduced engagement over time. (3) Threat-only, threat-plus-efficacy, and regulation-plus-action communication merit direct comparison, ideally in field rather than laboratory settings, given that message effects observed in controlled studies do not reliably predict sustained behavior change. (4) Climate cafés and comparable community formats need evaluation using behavioral as well as self-report outcomes, since the existing literature on these formats documents their spread and design more thoroughly than their effects. (5) Equity, cultural context, and structural constraints should be examined as moderators, treating differential exposure and differential access to collective action, not just differential emotional response, as core variables rather than covariates to be controlled away. Mixed-methods and community-partnered research will be essential to this agenda, particularly research led by or conducted in genuine partnership with the communities most exposed to climate impacts. A construct developed primarily through literature synthesis should not be validated primarily through populations distant from those most affected (Henrich et al., 2010).

A trauma-informed lens cannot replace policy, governance, emissions reduction, habitat protection, or climate justice, and it should not be read as implying that structural and political solutions are secondary to psychological ones. It may nevertheless help conservation science ask a neglected question, one that sits alongside rather than beneath those structural questions: under what social and emotional conditions can people remain in contact with ecological loss while retaining connection, agency, and capacity for collective action?

This Perspective does not claim that collective climate disengagement is an established phenomenon, only that it is a plausible and testable one, and that testing it rather than assuming or dismissing it is the more useful next step for conservation science. If the construct survives empirical scrutiny, it offers a concrete target for intervention alongside structural and policy change; if it does not, ruling it out will still have clarified what does explain the persistence of climate-related numbing. Either outcome moves the field forward.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. No generative AI tools were used in drafting or writing the manuscript, and all written content in the body of the manuscript is the authors’ own work. AI tools were used solely to reformat the references from APA to Harvard style during the final revision stage. All references were subsequently reviewed and verified by the authors following the AI-assisted reformatting.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Scott Jones, Oslo New University College, Norway

Reviewed by: Sandra Engstrom, University of Stirling, United Kingdom