Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Mental models of the sixth mass extinction reveal pathways for transformative sustainability action

121 Views


Abstract

To address fundamental challenges to global sustainability posed by unprecedented biodiversity loss and the sixth mass extinction (SME), scientists advocate for transformative changes to systems, policies, and behaviours. Yet public understanding of the biodiversity crisis remains largely unexplored. This article presents the first comprehensive examination of public mental models regarding support for transformative changes using a nationally representative UK survey (n = 739). Whilst only 28% of respondents had heard of the “sixth mass extinction,” 93% accepted the phenomenon once explained, with 95% attributing it to human activities. Principal component analysis revealed distinct mental models for policy support (conservation, market regulation, lifestyle changes, and big technology) and behavioural change (citizenship, consumer actions, waste reduction, and nuclear energy use). Attribution to direct human causes strongly predicted support for transformative change (β = 0.44, p < 0.001), while attributions to distant and non-human causes reduced support (β = − 0.20, p < 0.001). These findings demonstrate high latent public support for sustainability transformations and provide actionable insights for science communication and policy engagement strategies addressing the biodiversity crisis.

Data availability

All data and analysis code is available at the Open Science Foundation: https://osf.io/cs6a2/overview?view_only=d5af6fd2aea548498f94589df3c9b0cb.

References

  1. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 13596–13602 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?. Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bocchi, F., Bokulich, A., Brache, L. C., Grand-Pierre, G. & Watkins, A. Are we in a sixth mass extinction? The challenges of answering and value of asking. Br. J. Philos. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1086/722107 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P. & Fontaine, B. The sixth mass extinction: Fact, fiction or speculation?. Biol. Rev. 97, 640–663 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher, C. et al. Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future. PNAS Nexus 3, pgae106 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ripple, W. J. et al. Extinction risk is most acute for the world’s largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 10678–10683 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L. & Agrawal, A. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment : Full Report. https://zenodo.org/records/11382216 (2024) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382216.

  10. Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Scientific Outcome of the IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop on Biodiversity and Climate Change. https://zenodo.org/records/5101125 (2021) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5101125.

  11. Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Extending the sustainable development goals to 2050—A road map. Nature 630, 555–558 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sachs, J. D. et al. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 805–814 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 550–556 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Veríssimo, D. et al. Changing human behavior to conserve biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 49, 419–448 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lees, A. C., Attwood, S., Barlow, J. & Phalan, B. Biodiversity scientists must fight the creeping rise of extinction denial. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1440–1443 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wong-Parodi, G. & Bruine De Bruin, W. Informing public perceptions about climate change: A ‘mental models’ approach. Sci. Eng. Ethics 23, 1369–1386 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. The history of mental models. In Psychology of Reasoning 189–222 (Psychology Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bostrom, A. Mental models and risk perceptions related to climate change. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (2017).

  20. Bostrom, A. et al. Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 210–222 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bain, P. G. et al. Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat. Sustain. 2, 819–825 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 112–124 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Algan, Y., Cohen, D., Davoine, E., Foucault, M. & Stantcheva, S. Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2108576118 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 749 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leiserowitz, A., Goddard, E., Verner, M., Rosenthal, S. & Marlon., J. Climate Change in the British Mind. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-british-mind/ (2024).

  28. Evensen, D. et al. Effect of “finite pool of worry” and COVID-19 on UK climate change perceptions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2018936118 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bretter, C. & Schulz, F. Public support for decarbonization policies in the UK: Exploring regional variations and policy instruments. Clim. Policy 24, 117–137 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Demski, C., Steentjes, K. & Poortinga, W. CAST Data Portal: Public views on climate. CAST https://cast.ac.uk/cast-tools/cast-data-portal-public-views-on-climate/ (2024).

  31. Climate Barometer. Opinion trackers. Climate Barometer https://climatebarometer.org/climate-barometer-trackers/ (2025).

  32. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y. & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Office for National Statistics. Public and business attitudes to the environment and climate change, Great Britain. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/publicandbusinessattitudestotheenvironmentandclimatechangegreatbritain/2024 (2024).

  34. Fang, X., Ettinger, J. & Innocenti, S. United Nations Environment Assembly attendees underestimate public willingness to contribute to climate action. Commun. Earth Environ. 6, 622 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Poortinga, W. The role of policy appraisals and second-order beliefs in public support for climate policies in the UK. Clim Policy https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2539977 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Scheuch, E. G., Ortiz, M., Shreedhar, G. & Thomas-Walters, L. The power of protest in the media: Examining portrayals of climate activism in UK news. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 270 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Thomas-Walters, L., Scheuch, E. G., Ong, A. & Goldberg, M. H. The impacts of climate activism. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 63, 101498 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Clulow, Z. Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: Explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Clim. Policy 19, 244–257 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schulze, K. Policy characteristics, electoral cycles, and the partisan politics of climate change. Glob. Environ. Polit. 21, 44–72 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Smith, E. & Nurse, A. Repression over responsibility: Sanctioning of environmental activism. Environ. Res. Lett. 20, 081003 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Barrie, C., Fleming, T. G. & Rowan, S. S. Does protest influence political speech? Evidence from UK climate protest, 2017–2019. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 54, 456–473 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Geiger, S. J. et al. What we think others think and do about climate change: A multicountry test of pluralistic ignorance and public-consensus messaging. Psychol. Sci. 36, 421–442 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Goldberg, M. H. et al. The experience of consensus: Video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Sci. Commun. 41, 659–673 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shreedhar, G. & Mourato, S. Experimental evidence on the impact of biodiversity conservation videos on charitable donations. Ecol. Econ. 158, 180–193 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Drews, S. & Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy 16, 855–876 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N. & Jagers, S. C. Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 235–240 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Moser, S. C. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say?. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 345–369 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Moser, S. C. & Dilling, L. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Karlsson, M., Alfredsson, E. & Westling, N. Climate policy co-benefits: A review. Clim. Policy 20, 292–316 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G. & Fielding, K. S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 622–626 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shreedhar, G. & Galizzi, M. M. Personal or planetary health? Direct, spillover and carryover effects of non-monetary benefits of vegetarian behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 78, 101710 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Whitmee, S. et al. Pathways to a healthy net-zero future: Report of the Lancet Pathfinder Commission. Lancet 403, 67–110 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sparkman, G., Geiger, N. & Weber, E. U. Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nat. Commun. 13, 4779 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. & Falk, A. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 253–259 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sheeran, P. Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 1–36 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Shreedhar, G., Moran, C. & Mills, S. Sticky brown sludge everywhere: Can sludge explain barriers to green behaviour?. Behav. Public Policy 8, 701–716 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Poortinga, W. et al. Factors and framing effects in support for net zero policies in the United Kingdom. Front. Psychol. 14, 1287188 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wanted: a fair carbon tax. Nature 564, 161–161 (2018).

  60. Moseley, A., Sandover, R. & Devine-Wright, P. Integrating citizens’ assemblies into local climate governance: Lessons from a UK case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 168, 104052 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wells, R., Howarth, C. & Brand-Correa, L. I. Are citizen juries and assemblies on climate change driving democratic climate policymaking? An exploration of two case studies in the UK. Clim. Change 168, 5 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wibeck, V. Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change—Some lessons from recent literature. Environ. Educ. Res. 20, 387–411 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S. & van den Bergh, J. Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: A review of the literature. Clim. Policy 19, 1186–1204 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Martin Bauer, Declan Conway, Anomitro Chatterjee, Katarzyna Mikolajczak and Ben Filewood for comments on previous versions of this paper, and Patricia Freitag for research assistance on earlier versions of this work.

Funding

This research was supported by the London School of Economics Staff Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England

    Ganga Shreedhar

Authors

  1. Ganga Shreedhar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All study design, data collection, analyses and writing undertaken by GS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Ganga Shreedhar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shreedhar, G. Mental models of the sixth mass extinction reveal pathways for transformative sustainability action.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40100-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40100-w

Keywords

  • Extinction
  • Mental models
  • Biodiversity loss
  • System transformation
  • Policy support
  • Behaviour change

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Molecular xenomonitoring for identifying Plasmodium parasites and blood meal sources of mosquitoes in malaria endemic villages adjacent to the southern Rift Valley Lakes, South Ethiopia

A comprehensive UK crop yield dataset incorporating satellite, weather, and soil type information

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close