Call a Friend
Create
Sometimes what looks like apathy may be something more complicated. When something matters deeply but also feels frightening, painful or impossible to resolve, avoiding it can become surprisingly attractive.
There is an email you haven't opened.
A conversation you've been meaning to have.
A bank statement sitting on the counter.
A friend you keep thinking about but haven't called.
A medical appointment you know you should make.
And perhaps a news story you scroll past because you already have a fairly good idea how it is going to make you feel.
From the outside, these things can look like procrastination.
Sometimes they are.
Sometimes we are tired. Sometimes we're busy. Sometimes we genuinely aren't interested. And occasionally the cupboard under the sink really does become more urgent than every other problem in our lives.
But there is another possibility.
Sometimes we may avoid something not because it matters too little, but because it matters too much.
Psychologists have been approaching versions of this idea from several directions. Research into procrastination, anxiety, emotion regulation and threatening information suggests that human beings don't always move toward the things they care about.
Sometimes we move away from them.
And an unusual book about environmental psychology offers an intriguing place to begin.
What If Apathy Isn't Really Apathy?
In Environmental Melancholia, psychosocial researcher Renee Lertzman questioned a common assumption about environmental behavior.
People frequently say they care about pollution, climate change and the natural world.
Yet their behavior may appear inconsistent with those beliefs.
The obvious explanation is that they don't really care very much.
Lertzman wondered whether that explanation might sometimes be wrong.
Her research took place in Green Bay, Wisconsin, an especially interesting setting because the community's relationship with industry was complicated. Industry provided jobs, prosperity and community identity. It had also contributed to environmental degradation.
People could therefore value the river while valuing the industries affecting it.
They could appreciate what industry had given their community while grieving what had been damaged.
They could be grateful and angry.
Concerned and disengaged.
Attached and disappointed.
All at the same time.
Lertzman's central insight was that ambivalence matters.
Her research challenged the idea that people divide neatly into those who care and those who don't. Instead, she proposed that apparent environmental apathy can sometimes conceal anxiety, grief, conflicting loyalties and a feeling that meaningful action is beyond one's control.
She called one aspect of this environmental melancholia—a psychoanalytically informed way of understanding unresolved or insufficiently acknowledged environmental loss.
It's an intriguing idea.
But it requires an important asterisk.
Ten People Cannot Explain the Human Race
Lertzman's research was intentionally intimate rather than large-scale.
She interviewed 10 people in Green Bay, generally people who expressed some environmental concern but weren't environmental activists. Each participant was interviewed three times, for roughly an hour each.
These weren't conventional questionnaires.
Lertzman encouraged people to talk freely, paying attention to their memories, contradictions, emotional responses and associations.
That produced unusually rich material.
It did not establish that environmental melancholia explains why millions of people fail to act on things they care about.
Nor is environmental melancholia a diagnosis.
Lertzman's work is better regarded as an interpretive framework that poses an unusually interesting question:
What if we are sometimes mistaking emotional conflict for indifference?
That question turns out to have interesting parallels elsewhere in psychology.
Procrastination May Not Be About Time
Most of us have treated procrastination as a scheduling problem.
Apparently, if we could only discover the correct notebook, calendar, app and collection of color-coded sticky notes, human civilization would finally achieve its potential.
Psychologists Fuschia Sirois and Timothy Pychyl have offered a rather less flattering explanation.
Their work describes procrastination partly as a problem of emotion regulation.
When a task feels unpleasant, stressful, frustrating, boring or threatening, postponing it can provide immediate relief.
The task hasn't disappeared.
But the uncomfortable feeling associated with it has temporarily diminished.
The present self gets the relief.
The future self gets the problem.
This helps explain an otherwise peculiar human behavior: we can sincerely intend to do something that matters to us and simultaneously avoid doing it.
That doesn't mean every delayed task conceals some profound emotional struggle.
Sometimes we simply don't want to clean the garage.
But it does undermine a simplistic assumption:
If something really mattered to us, surely we'd do it.
Human behavior isn't necessarily that tidy.
Sometimes Avoidance Works — Briefly
Imagine you've received a letter that may contain bad news.
Not opening it changes nothing about whatever is written inside.
But for the next hour, you don't have to know.
That distinction matters.
Avoidance can sometimes regulate the feeling created by a problem without changing the problem itself.
Research into responses to threatening health information illustrates this particularly clearly.
People confronted with personally threatening information may sometimes avoid it, dismiss it, reinterpret it or suppress their response to it.
Again, that doesn't mean everyone does this.
Nor does it mean avoiding information proves that someone is secretly terrified.
But it demonstrates something important about human psychology:
More important information does not invariably produce more attention.
Under some circumstances, threat can produce disengagement instead.
The unopened envelope suddenly looks rather less irrational.
The Problem of Not Knowing
There is another psychological ingredient that may help explain why some problems become difficult to face: uncertainty.
Researchers use the term intolerance of uncertainty to describe difficulty coping with the possibility that something negative might happen when we cannot know exactly what, when or how.
It has become an important concept in contemporary psychology.
A 2023 meta-analysis covering 91 studies and more than 30,000 participants found that greater intolerance of uncertainty was moderately associated with more maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies and less use of adaptive strategies.
A much larger 2026 meta-analysis, synthesizing 115 studies and dissertations involving 28,693 participants, found substantial associations among intolerance of uncertainty, worry and several forms of anxiety.
That research concerns psychological processes and, in many cases, clinical symptoms. It should not be used to diagnose ourselves because we have been avoiding a difficult telephone call.
But the broader observation is useful.
Not knowing can itself be emotionally difficult.
And many of the subjects we care most about contain enormous uncertainty.
Will the relationship survive?
What will the doctor say?
Will my child be all right?
Have I saved enough?
Should I leave this job?
Will my parent ever speak to me again?
What will happen to the climate?
There may be no spreadsheet capable of providing the answer.
Although naturally we may create one anyway.
Caring and Acting Are Different Things
This brings us back to Lertzman's most useful challenge.
We often infer people's internal feelings from their external behavior.
Someone doesn't call.
Therefore she doesn't care.
Someone doesn't attend the meeting.
Therefore he isn't interested.
Someone doesn't change her behavior after receiving health information.
Therefore she didn't take it seriously.
Someone worries about the environment but doesn't join an environmental organization.
Hypocrite.
Perhaps.
But human motivation permits other explanations.
Someone may care and feel powerless.
Care and feel frightened.
Care and feel conflicted.
Care and have competing responsibilities.
Care and not know what to do.
Or care deeply enough that thinking about the subject has become emotionally exhausting.
This doesn't make avoidance desirable.
It simply makes it understandable.
And understanding something is different from excusing it.
Agency May Be the Missing Ingredient
One of the most interesting developments in environmental psychology since Lertzman's original research concerns efficacy.
Put simply: does a person believe that anything she does will make a meaningful difference?
Research on climate engagement increasingly suggests that personal and collective efficacy matter.
A 2026 study using two large U.S. samples—one of 1,197 people and another of more than 31,000—found that response efficacy, the belief that actions can produce meaningful outcomes, was strongly associated with climate-related engagement. Messages emphasizing collective effectiveness also increased several forms of perceived efficacy.
That doesn't prove that low efficacy causes all disengagement.
But it reinforces an important part of Lertzman's argument.
Telling people to care more may be ineffective when caring isn't the missing ingredient.
Sometimes what is missing may be the belief:
There is something meaningful I can actually do.
That distinction reaches far beyond environmental behavior.
Think about loneliness.
Telling a lonely person that friendship is important probably contributes very little new information.
Telling someone worried about her finances that money matters is equally unlikely to come as a revelation.
And telling a couple whose marriage is struggling that communication is important may qualify as information they have encountered previously.
The difficulty may lie somewhere between knowing, feeling and acting.
Ambivalence Doesn't Mean Something Is Wrong
Perhaps this is where Lertzman's idea has its greatest everyday usefulness.
We tend to treat ambivalence as something that must be resolved.
Do I love him or don't I?
Do I want the promotion or not?
Am I excited that my daughter is leaving home or devastated?
Do I want to care for my aging parent or resent how much of my life it requires?
Am I grateful for what my career has given me while wondering whether I want to spend another decade doing it?
The answer can be:
Both.
Contradictory feelings aren't necessarily evidence that we haven't worked out what we think.
Sometimes they are an accurate response to a complicated reality.
Lertzman's Green Bay participants could value industry and regret environmental destruction because both things were true within their experience.
Likewise, a woman can love her mother and need distance from her.
She can adore her children and desperately want an evening without them.
She can be grateful for a marriage and profoundly unhappy with parts of it.
She can want change and fear what change would cost.
Human beings have a remarkable capacity for holding two apparently incompatible truths at once.
The mistake may be assuming that one of them must be counterfeit.
A Good Conversation May Do Something Advice Cannot
There is another lesson in Lertzman's work that feels especially relevant now.
Her interviews weren't designed primarily to tell participants what to do.
They were designed to let people talk long enough for contradictions, memories and feelings to emerge.
That suggests a different understanding of what conversation can accomplish.
When someone we care about appears stuck, our instinct is often to offer a solution.
“Why don't you just call her?”
“You need to make an appointment.”
“Leave the job.”
“Talk to your husband.”
“Stop worrying about it.”
All potentially excellent solutions to somebody else's life.
But advice assumes that the missing ingredient is information.
Sometimes it isn't.
A thoughtful conversation may instead allow someone to hear her own ambivalence.
She may discover that the decision she has been postponing isn't difficult because she doesn't know what she wants.
Perhaps she wants two incompatible things.
That's a different problem.
And it may require a different conversation.
But We Should Be Careful With This Idea
There is an attractive danger here.
Once we discover a psychologically interesting explanation for behavior, it's tempting to use it everywhere.
We shouldn't.
Not every instance of apathy conceals profound concern.
Not every procrastinated task is emotionally significant.
Not every unanswered message reflects anxiety.
Sometimes people really aren't interested.
Sometimes practical obstacles—money, childcare, illness, exhaustion, work schedules, transportation—are far more important than psychology.
And sometimes avoidance is a sensible temporary response when we don't yet have the capacity to deal with something.
Most importantly, we cannot look at another person's behavior and confidently announce what unconscious process explains it.
Lertzman's work is valuable partly because it encourages curiosity where we might otherwise make a judgment.
The useful question isn't:
“What is she really feeling?”
It is:
“Could there be more going on here than I can see?”
That small change leaves the other person some dignity.
Perhaps Apathy Is Sometimes the Wrong Question
There is a considerable difference between asking:
Why don't you care?
and:
What makes this difficult to face?
The first contains an accusation.
The second contains curiosity.
And perhaps that distinction matters in our relationships with other people—and with ourselves.
The unread email may still need opening.
The appointment may still need making.
The difficult conversation may still need having.
Understanding avoidance doesn't make those things disappear.
But it may change the conversation from:
“Why can't I just get myself to do this?”
to:
“What is making this so difficult for me to approach?”
Occasionally the answer will be wonderfully mundane.
You are tired.
The task is boring.
You forgot.
But occasionally we may discover something more interesting.
We weren't avoiding the thing because it meant nothing.
We were avoiding what it made us feel.
Lydia's™ Take
We often judge caring by what people do.
Usually that makes sense.
But human beings are more complicated than the neat equation care → action suggests.
Renee Lertzman's research into environmental engagement offers a provocative alternative: what looks like apathy may sometimes contain anxiety, grief, ambivalence or a sense of powerlessness.
Research from other areas of psychology doesn't prove that explanation universally. But it does show that uncomfortable emotions can contribute to procrastination, threatening information can provoke defensive avoidance, difficulty tolerating uncertainty can complicate emotion regulation, and believing that our actions can make a difference may matter for engagement.
Perhaps the lesson isn't that avoidance secretly means we care.
It is gentler than that.
We shouldn't assume that someone's behavior tells us everything about what she feels.
That includes our own behavior.
The next time something important remains stubbornly undone, perhaps there is a question worth asking before criticizing ourselves:
Am I avoiding this because it doesn't matter—or because facing what it means feels difficult?
We may not immediately know the answer.
But that might be a conversation worth having.
Editorial Note
This article discusses psychological research concerning avoidance, procrastination, uncertainty, emotion regulation and environmental engagement. These concepts describe patterns observed in research populations and should not be used to diagnose an individual's behavior or infer another person's psychological state. Avoidance can have many causes, including ordinary practical constraints, fatigue, competing priorities and lack of interest. Persistent anxiety, avoidance or distress that interferes substantially with daily life may warrant discussion with an appropriate healthcare or mental-health professional.
Research & Trusted Sources
Lertzman, R. (2015). Environmental Melancholia: Psychoanalytic Dimensions of Engagement. Routledge.
Lertzman's psychosocial study used repeated, in-depth interviews with 10 Green Bay participants to examine environmental loss, ambivalence, concern and apparent apathy. The work is best understood as qualitative and theory-generating rather than evidence that environmental melancholia is a universal psychological mechanism.
Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2013). Procrastination and the Priority of Short-Term Mood Regulation: Consequences for Future Self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127.
The authors develop the influential account of procrastination as partly involving short-term mood regulation in response to aversive tasks.
Pychyl, T. A., & Sirois, F. M. (2016). Procrastination, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being. In Procrastination, Health, and Well-Being. Academic Press.
Reviews evidence connecting procrastination, task aversiveness, mood repair and emotion regulation.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237.
Meta-analysis incorporating 241 effect sizes from 114 studies examining emotion-regulation strategies including avoidance, acceptance, reappraisal, rumination and suppression.
van 't Riet, J., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2013). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: an overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review, 7(sup1), S104–S136.
Reviews evidence that personally threatening health information can produce defensive responses including avoidance, denial, reappraisal and suppression.
Sahib, A., Chen, J., Cárdenas, D., & Calear, A. L. (2023). Intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic and systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 101, 102270.
Across 91 studies and 30,239 participants, intolerance of uncertainty was moderately positively associated with maladaptive emotion regulation and moderately inversely associated with adaptive emotion regulation.
Dugas, M. J., Koerner, N., & Freeston, M. H. (2026). State of the Science: Intolerance of Uncertainty. Behavior Therapy, 57(1), 17–36.
A contemporary review of three decades of research describing intolerance of uncertainty as an important, although still actively debated, transdiagnostic and trans-situational psychological construct.
Akbari, M., Sheikhi, S., Navab Safiadin, M. S., Rahmani, M., Forootan, R., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2026). A hierarchical uncertainty framework of anxiety: Preregistered meta-analytic structural model of intolerance of uncertainty and worry across anxiety disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 128, 102773.
Synthesized 738 effect sizes from 115 studies/dissertations and 28,693 participants, finding substantial but varying relationships among intolerance of uncertainty, worry and anxiety outcomes.
Fritsche, I., & Masson, T. (2021). Collective climate action: When do people turn into collective environmental agents? Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 114–119.
Reviews evidence concerning group identification, social norms, group-based emotions, collective efficacy and collective climate action.
Boehme, B. A. E., et al. (2024). Climate Anxiety: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Current Psychiatry Reports, 26, 670–677.
Reviews the developing evidence concerning psychological, somatic and behavioral responses to climate change and cautions against simplistic conceptualization of climate-related anxiety.
Research note: Lertzman's original argument should not be treated as establishing that apparent apathy is generally caused by unconscious environmental grief. Her empirical study was small, qualitative and interpretive. Subsequent research from several different psychological traditions nevertheless supports a narrower proposition: emotionally aversive tasks, threatening information, uncertainty and perceived efficacy can all influence whether people approach or avoid matters that may be important to them.