ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Ethics and action pathways for psychologists in a time of climate crisis.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The climate crisis is a public and mental health emergency and amplified risk for those who are already vulnerable with significant implications for population-level quality of life and human rights. The relevance and urgency of the climate crisis is reflected in numerous "calls to action" from psychologists, health professionals, scientists, academics, and others to prioritize professional engagement with this issue. Such engagement is highly consistent with professional ethical codes and psychologists are uniquely positioned to contribute to mitigation and adaptation efforts due to their content expertise, professional training, research practice and networks affording them positions of influence. The present paper highlights three broad issues. First, it positions psychologists' involvement as an ethical and professional responsibility. The ethics codes and position papers of a number of psychology organizations are reviewed. Second, the paper discusses potential contributions of psychological science to collective and individual action as well as expertise in different areas of practice (clinical, educational, health, organizational, community, conservation, research). Last, practical ways in which any psychologist (student or qualified) in various roles (e.g., clinician, researcher, employee), in different arenas (work, community), utilizing different strategies (e.g., individual and collective advocacy/action) are identified. The paper emphasizes the importance of collective action to enact systems change. We argue that across their numerous roles and subdisciplines, psychologists not just can but should support necessary mitigation and adaptation efforts, empowering themselves and colleagues to mobilize and address the most pressing and impactful societal issue of our time.
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.