ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Rethinking knowledge systems in psychology: addressing epistemic hegemony and systemic obstacles in climate change studies.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Values of protected area landscapes shape the behaviors of subsistence users in Interior Alaska.Ambio · 2026Article
- Conceptualizing Young People's Experiences of Climate Change Awareness: A Narrative Review.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- Community sports governance and physical activity participation: evidence on mediation by facilities and moderation by awareness.BMC public health · 2025Article
- "When the climate changes, we feel it first": Gendered perceptions of environmental change and women's health in Pakistan.Women's health (London, England)Article
- Mapping two decades of research on climate change and women's reproductive health: A bibliometric analysis (2000-2024).Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate psychology has emerged as a critical field examining how individuals and societies perceive, respond to, and engage with the climate crisis. However, the discipline remains deeply influenced by Western epistemologies, which privilege individualistic, anthropocentric, and positivist approaches to knowledge production. This perspective paper critically examines how Western bias shapes the theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, and policy implications within climate psychology, often to the exclusion of non-Western epistemologies, particularly those from Indigenous and Global South communities. We argue that dominant Western paradigms, rooted in individualism, cognitive-behavioral models, and human-exceptionalist perspectives, constrain the field's ability to fully capture the complex, relational, and context-specific ways in which diverse populations engage with climate change. Moreover, the overreliance on quantitative and experimental methodologies systematically marginalizes Indigenous methodologies, such as storytelling, relational worldviews, and participatory research approaches, thereby limiting the inclusivity and ecological validity of climate psychology research. To address these limitations, we propose a decolonial approach to climate psychology, advocating for the integration of Indigenous epistemologies, pluralistic methodologies, and equitable research collaborations. By diversifying epistemic foundations and methodological tools, climate psychology can move beyond its Western biases, leading to more culturally responsive research and more effective and just climate interventions. This paper calls for a fundamental reorientation in climate psychology, one that values epistemic diversity as essential for addressing the multifaceted human dimensions of climate change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.