Does Art Make a Difference? – An Experimental Investigation of Differential Perception and Processing in the Reception of Artistic and Non-Artistic Apocalyptic Climate Images

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the differential impact of artistic versus documentary dystopian imagery of climate change using an experimental design (N = 1155, German access panel). We present supporting evidence for the hypotheses that abstract artworks depicting dystopian scenarios of climate change, compared to documentary photographs, lead to higher aesthetic judgments, are likely to evoke stronger positive and weaker negative emotions, and result in greater psychological distancing, lower attention to climate change, and reduced efficacy beliefs to mitigate climate change. Moreover, based on an exploratory content analysis, we show that most participants recognize a nature motif and reference to an environmental problem in both images. However, only the artwork prompted positive reactions or unique interpretations beyond the immediate subject of the image. Our study highlights a critical need for a balanced use of visual media in climate change advocacy.

Keywords

environmental art climate change dystopian imagery experiment abstract art

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Barkela

Schäfer

Altenmüller

M. S

. (2024). Artistic activism: Can aesthetic reception reduce adverse effects of disruptive protest? https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4gnj2

Ben-Shachar

M. S.

Lüdecke

Makowski

(2020). Effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815

Buckland

(2012). Climate is culture. Nature Climate Change, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1420

Carmi

Kimhi

(2015). Further than the eye can see: Psychological distance and perception of environmental threats. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(8), 2239–2257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1046419

Corbett

J. B.

Clark

(2017). How the arts and humanities help people see, feel and engage with climate change communication. In Oxford research encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.392

Crowther

Wünsche

(2012). Introduction. In Crowther

Wünsche

(Eds.), Meanings of abstract art: Between nature and theory (pp. 1–8). Routledge.

Cupchik

G. C.

(2002). The evolution of psychical distance as an aesthetic concept. Culture & Psychology, 8, 155–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567 ( 02008002437

Curtis

D. J.

(2011). Using the arts to raise awareness and communicate environmental information in the extension context. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.544458

10.

Duan

Bombarra

(2022). Visualizing climate change: the role of construal level, emotional valence, and visual literacy. Climatic Change, 170(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03291-x

11.

Duan

Takahashi

Zwickle

(2019). Abstract or concrete? The effect of climate change images on people’s estimation of egocentric psychological distance. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865982

12.

Elíasson

(2016, January 18). Why art has the power to change the world. World Economic Forum. Retrieved June 11, 2023, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/why-art-has-the-power-to-change-the-world/

13.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

14.

Fox

Weisberg

(2019). An R companion to Applied Regression (3rd ed.). Sage. https://www.john-fox.ca/Companion/

15.

Gerger

Leder

Kremer

(2014). Context effects on emotional and asthetic evaluations of artworks and IAPS pictures. Acta Psychologica, 151, 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.008

16.

Grittmann

(2014). Between risk, beauty and the sublime: The visualization of climate change in the German press during COP09. In Nocke

Schneider

(Eds.), Image politics of climate change. Visualizations, imaginations, documentations (pp. 127–151). Transcript Bielefeld.

17.

Guyer

(2015). Edmund Burke. A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. Oxford University Press.

18.

Hagtvedt

Patrick

(2008). The perception and evaluation of visual art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.26.2.d

19.

Hamann

K. R. S.

Reese

(2020). My influence on the world (of others): Global efficacy affect predict rivate, public and activist pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12369

20.

Hao

Zhang

Hou

Lau

S. S. Y.

Lau

S. S. Y.

(2024). Research on the physiological and psychological impacts of extraordinary nature on emotions and restorative effects for young adults. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 97, 102345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102345

21.

Kassambara

(2023). ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.6.0. https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/ggpubr/

22.

Keller

Sommer

Klöckner

Hanss

(2020). Contextualizing information enhances the experience of environmental art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(3), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000213

23.

Kobré

(2017). Photojournalism the Professionals’ approach. Routledge.

24.

Krieger

(2018). Modes of aesthetic ambiguity in contemporary art: Conceptualizing ambiguity in art history. In Berndt

Koepnick

(Eds.), Ambiguity in contemporary art and theory (pp. 61–105). Felix Meiner Verlag.

25.

Lacy

Watson

B. R.

Riffe

Lovejoy

(2015). Issue and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quaterly, 9(4), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015607338

26.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

27.

Leiner

D. J.

(2022). SoSci Survey (version 3.3.17) [computer software]. SoSci Survey GmbH. Available at https://www.soscisurvey.de

28.

Liberman

Trope

McCrea

S. M.

Sherman

S. J.

(2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009

29.

Maiella

La Malva

Marchetti

Pomarico

Di Crosta

A.,

Palumbo

, … Verrocchio

M. C.

(2020). The psychological distance and climate change: A systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 568899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899

30.

Mallett

R. K.

Harrison

P. R.

Melchiori

K. J.

(2021). Guilt and environmental behavior. In Maggino

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3962-2

31.

Mayring

(2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089

32.

Menninghaus

Wagner

Hanich

Wassiliwizky

Jacobsen

Koelsch

(2017). The distancing-embracing model of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art reception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17000309

33.

Metag

Schäfer

M. S.

Füchslin

Barsuhn

Kleinen-von Königslow

(2016). Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self efficacy in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Science Communication, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181

34.

Navarro

(2015). Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners. (Version 0.6). University of New South Wales. R package version 0.5.1, https://learningstatisticswithr.com

35.

Newman

(2007). Active flame front of the Zaca Fire, the second largest fire on record in California [Photograph]. Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved July 19, 2024, from https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zaca3.jpg

36.

Nurmis

(2016). Visual climate change art 2005-2015: Discourse and practise. WIRES Climate Change, 7(4), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.400

37.

Ojala

(2023). Hope and climate-change engagement from a psychological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49, 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101514

38.

O’Neill

S. J.

Boykoff

Niemeyer

Day

S. A.

(2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimension, 23(2), 413–421. https://doi.org./10.1016(j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006

39.

O’Neill

S. J.

Nicholson-Cole

(2009). Fear won’t do it. Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 3(30), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201

40.

Pelowski

Gerger

Chetouani

Markey

P. S.

Leder

(2017a). But is it really art? The classification of images as “art”/“not art” and correlation with appraisal and viewer interpersonal differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01729

41.

Pelowski

Markey

P. S.

Forster

Gerger

Leder

(2017b). Move me, astonish me… delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003

42.

Pelowski

Markey

P. S.

Lauring

J. O.

Leder

(2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(160). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160

43.

Pelto

(2015). Increasing forest fire activity [Artwork]. Retrieved July 19, 2024, from https://www.jillpelto.com/increasing-forest-fire-activity

44.

Pelto

(2021). Climate change data: Watercolor on paper. Journal of Interdisciplinary Public Policy, 2(1), 29–32. https://jipp.org/read/3-2-climate-change-data

45.

Posit Team. (2024). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (version 2024.4). Posit Software, PBC. http://www.posit.co/

46.

R Core Team. (2024). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.4.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org

47.

Revelle

(2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University. R package version 2.4.6, https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych

48.

Scherer

K. R.

(2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216

49.

Schindler

Hosoya

Menninghaus

Beermann

Wagner

Eid

Scherer

K. R.

(2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PLOS ONE, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899

50.

Schreier

(2014). Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: Disentangling terms and terminologies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043

51.

Skov

Nadal

(2020). A farewell to art: Aesthetics as a topic in psychology and neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619897963

52.

Skov

Nadal

(2021). The nature of perception and emotion in aesthetic appreciation: A response to makin’s challenge to empirical aesthetics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(3), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000278

53.

Sommer

L. K.

Klöckner

C. A.

(2021). Does activist art have the capacity to raise awareness in audiences?—A study on climate change art at the ArtCOP21 event in Paris. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000247

54.

Sommer

L. K.

Swim

J. K.

Keller

Klöckner

C. A.

(2019). Pollution Pods”: The merging of art and psychology to engage the public in climate change. Global Environmental Change, 59, Article 101992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101992

55.

Spence

Pidgeon

(2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002

56.

Torchiano

(2020). effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package version 0.8.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package=effsize

57.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(3), 440–463. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0020319

58.

Wang

Corner

Chapman

Markowitz

(2018). Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley WIREs climate change, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.509

59.

Wickham

(2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

60.

Wickham

François

Henry

Müller

(2023). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.1.4. https://dplyr.tidyverse.org/; https://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr

61.

Wickham

Vaughan

Girlich

(2024). tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. R package version 1.3.1. https://github.com/tidyverse/tidyr, https://tidyr.tidyverse.org

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.10 MB

0.04 MB