Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-1
Does Art Make a Difference? – An Experimental Investigation of Differential Perception and Processing in the Reception of Artistic and Non-Artistic Apocalyptic Climate Images
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.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
2.
BarkelaB.SchäferC.AltenmüllerM. S. (2024). Artistic activism: Can aesthetic reception reduce adverse effects of disruptive protest? https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4gnj2
3.
Ben-ShacharM. S.LüdeckeD.MakowskiD. (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
CarmiN.KimhiS. (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
6.
CorbettJ. B.ClarkB. (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
7.
CrowtherP.WünscheI. (2012). Introduction. In CrowtherP.WünscheI. (Eds.), Meanings of abstract art: Between nature and theory (pp. 1–8). Routledge.
CurtisD. 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.
DuanR.BombarraC. (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.
DuanR.TakahashiB.ZwickleA. (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
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
GergerG.LederE.KremerA. (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.
GrittmannE. (2014). Between risk, beauty and the sublime: The visualization of climate change in the German press during COP09. In NockeT.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Image politics of climate change. Visualizations, imaginations, documentations (pp. 127–151). Transcript Bielefeld.
17.
GuyerP. (2015). Edmund Burke. A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. Oxford University Press.
18.
HagtvedtH.HagtvedtR.PatrickV. (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.
HamannK. R. S.ReeseG. (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.
HaoS.ZhangL.HouR.LauS. S. Y.LauS. 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
KellerA.SommerL.KlöcknerC.HanssD. (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.
KobréK. (2017). Photojournalism the Professionals’ approach. Routledge.
24.
KriegerV. (2018). Modes of aesthetic ambiguity in contemporary art: Conceptualizing ambiguity in art history. In BerndtF.KoepnickL. (Eds.), Ambiguity in contemporary art and theory (pp. 61–105). Felix Meiner Verlag.
25.
LacyS.WatsonB. R.RiffeD.LovejoyJ. (2015). Issue and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quaterly, 9(4), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015607338
26.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
27.
LeinerD. J. (2022). SoSci Survey (version 3.3.17) [computer software]. SoSci Survey GmbH. Available at https://www.soscisurvey.de
28.
LibermanN.TropeY.McCreaS. M.ShermanS. 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.
MaiellaR.La MalvaP.MarchettiD.PomaricoE.Di CrostaA.,PalumboR., … VerrocchioM. 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.
MallettR. K.HarrisonP. R.MelchioriK. J. (2021). Guilt and environmental behavior. In MagginoF. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3962-2
31.
MayringP. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
32.
MenninghausW.WagnerV.HanichJ.WassiliwizkyE.JacobsenT.KoelschS. (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.
MetagJ.SchäferM. S.FüchslinT.BarsuhnT.Kleinen-von KönigslowK. (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.
NavarroD. (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.
NewmanJ. (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.
NurmisJ. (2016). Visual climate change art 2005-2015: Discourse and practise. WIRES Climate Change, 7(4), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.400
O’NeillS. J.BoykoffM.NiemeyerS.DayS. 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’NeillS. J.Nicholson-ColeS. (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.
PelowskiM.GergerG.ChetouaniY.MarkeyP. S.LederH. (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.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.ForsterM.GergerG.LederH. (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.
PelowskiM.MarkeyP. S.LauringJ. O.LederH. (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
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.
RevelleW. (2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University. R package version 2.4.6, https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych
SchindlerI.HosoyaG.MenninghausW.BeermannU.WagnerV.EidM.SchererK. 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.
SchreierM. (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.
SkovM.NadalM. (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.
SkovM.NadalM. (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.
SommerL. K.KlöcknerC. 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.
SommerL. K.SwimJ. K.KellerA.KlöcknerC. 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.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (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
TropeY.LibermanN. (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.
WangS.CornerA.ChapmanD.MarkowitzE. (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.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
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.
