Climate change has been widely perceived as a psychologically distant risk, largely viewed as separated from one’s direct experience. Using construal-level theory, we examined how the level of abstraction and concreteness of climate change imagery affects viewers’ perceived psychological distance of climate change, including spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical (level of uncertainty) distances. Participants (n = 402) were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, one with abstract images and one with concrete images. Results show that the abstract and concrete images successfully activated people’s abstract and concrete mind-sets, respectively, and people who viewed abstract images were more likely to perceive climate change as a spatially and temporally distant issue.
Bar-AnanYLibermanNTropeY (2006) The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General135: 609–622.
2.
BloodhartBMaibachEMyersT, et al. (2015) Local climate experts: The influence of local TV weather information on climate change perceptions. PLoS ONE10: e0141526.
3.
BrüggerADessaiSDevine-WrightP, et al. (2015) Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change5: 1031–1037.
4.
BrüggerAMortonTADessaiS (2016) “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology46: 125–142.
5.
BrulleRJCarmichaelJJenkinsJC (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change114: 169–188.
6.
BurgoonEMHendersonMDMarkmanAB (2013) There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science8: 501–520.
7.
CarmichaelJTBrulleRJHuxsterJK (2017) The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change141(4): 599–612.
8.
ChapmanDACornerAWebsterR, et al. (2016) Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environmental Change41: 172–182.
9.
DahlstromMFScheufeleDA (2010) Diversity of television exposure and its association with the cultivation of concern for environmental risks. Environmental Communication4: 54–65.
10.
DiFrancescoDAYoungN (2011) Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cultural Geographies18: 517–536.
11.
DuanRZwickleATakahashiB (2017) A construal-level perspective of climate change images in US newspapers. Climatic Change142: 345–360.
12.
EvansLMilfontTLLawrenceJ (2014) Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental Change25: 69–75.
13.
EyalTSagristanoMDTropeY, et al. (2009) When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45: 35–43.
14.
FeldmanLHartPS (2018) Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis38: 585–602.
15.
FeldmanLHartPSMilosevicT (2017) Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science26: 481–497.
16.
FörsterJFriedmanRSLibermanN (2004) Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87: 177–189.
17.
FujitaKHendersonMDEngJ, et al. (2006) Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science17: 278–282.
18.
GeigerNMiddlewoodBSwimJ (2017) Psychological, social, and cultural barriers to communicating about climate change. In: NisbetMCHoSSMarkowitzEO’NeillSSchäferMSThakerJ (eds) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 312–328.
19.
HartPSFeldmanL (2016) The impact of climate change: Related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Science Communication38: 415–441.
20.
HartPSNisbetEC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research39: 701–723.
21.
HauserDJSchwarzN (2016) Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods48: 400–407.
22.
HindmanDB (2009) Mass media flow and differential distribution of politically disputed beliefs: The belief gap hypothesis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86: 790–808.
23.
HoSSLiaoYRosenthalS (2015) Applying the theory of planned behavior and media dependency theory: Predictors of public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication9: 77–99.
24.
HolbertRLKwakNShahDV (2003) Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media47: 177–196.
25.
HuffCTingleyD (2015) “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics. Epub ahead of print 10 September. DOI: 10.1177/2053168015604648.
JohnsonMDKisieliusJ (1985) Concreteness-abstract—Ness and the feature-dimension distinction. Advances in Consumer Research12: 325–328.
28.
JonesCHineDWMarksAD (2016) The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis37: 331–341.
29.
KalenscherT (2017) Social psychology: Love thy stranger as thyself. Nature Human Behaviour1: 0108.
30.
KlinebergSLMcKeeverMRothenbachB (1998) Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social Science Quarterly79: 734–753.
31.
KnezI (2016) Is climate change a moral issue? Effects of egoism and altruism on pro-environmental behavior. Current Urban Studies4: 157–174.
32.
LedgerwoodATropeYChaikenS (2010) Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology99: 32–51.
33.
LeeHDengXUnnavaHR, et al. (2014) Monochrome forests and colorful trees: The effect of black-and-white versus color imagery on construal level. Journal of Consumer Research41(4): 1015–1032.
34.
LeiserowitzA (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change77: 45–72.
LesterLCottleS (2009) Visualizing climate change: Television news and ecological citizenship. International Journal of Communication3: 920–936.
37.
LibermanNFörsterJ (2009) Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology97: 203–216.
38.
LibermanNFörsterJ (2011) Estimates of spatial distance: A construal level theory perspective. In: SchubertTWMaassA (eds) Spatial Dimensions of Social Thought. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 109–128.
39.
LibermanNTropeYMcCreaSM, et al. (2007) The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43: 143–149.
40.
McDonaldRIChaiHYNewellBR (2015) Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology44: 109–118.
41.
MetagJSchaeferMSFuechslinT, et al. (2016) Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Science Communication38: 197–227.
42.
NerlichBJaspalR (2013) UK media representations of carbon capture and storage: Actors, frames and metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World3: 35–53.
43.
O’NeillSNicholson-ColeS (2009) “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication30: 355–379.
44.
O’NeillSJBoykoffMNiemeyerS, et al. (2013) On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change23: 413–421.
45.
PaolacciGChandlerJIpeirotisPG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making5(5): 411–419.
RabinovichAMortonTAPostmesT, et al. (2009) Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. Journal of Environmental Psychology29: 391–399.
49.
Rebich-HespanhaSRiceREMontelloDR, et al. (2015) Image themes and frames in US print news stories about climate change. Environmental Communication9: 491–519.
50.
RickardLNYangZJSchuldtJP (2016) Here and now, there and then: How “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change38: 97–107.
51.
SacchiSRivaPAcetoA (2016) Myopic about climate change: Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology65: 68–73.
52.
ScannellLGiffordR (2013) Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior45: 60–85.
53.
SchuldtJPRickardLNYangZJ (2018) Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology55: 147–153.
54.
SinghASZwickleABruskotterJT, et al. (2017) The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy73: 93–99.
55.
SmithNWJoffeH (2009) Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research12: 647–663.
56.
SpenceAPidgeonN (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change20(4): 656–667.
57.
SpenceAPoortingaWButlerC, et al. (2011) Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change1: 46–49.
58.
SpenceAPoortingaWPidgeonN (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis32: 957–972.
59.
StephanELibermanNTropeY (2011) The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47: 397–402.
60.
TropeYLibermanN (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review117: 440–463.
61.
VallacherRRWegnerDM (1987) What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review94: 3–15.
62.
VallacherRRWegnerDM (1989) Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57: 660–671.
63.
Van der LindenS (2015) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology41: 112–124.
64.
VoweGHennP (2015) Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs. New York, NY: Routledge.
65.
WeinsteinND (1989) Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior. Psychological Bulletin105: 31–50.
66.
WillisGB (2004) Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
67.
ZhaoX (2009) Media use and global warming perceptions: A snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Communication Research36: 698–723.
68.
ZwickleAWilsonRS (2013) Construing risk: Implications for risk communication. In: ArvaiJRiversLIII (eds) Effective Risk Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 216–229.
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.
