This experimental study investigates how imagery and text in news coverage of climate change affect perceptions of issue importance, efficacy, and intentions to conserve energy and engage in climate change-related political behavior. The results reveal that images of solar panels and texts that discuss actions to address climate change increase individuals’ perceptions of efficacy. Perceived efficacy and issue importance each have a positive association with behavior change. In contrast to previous studies, the present investigation finds no evidence that exposure to images of either climate impacts or climate pollution negatively influence perceived efficacy or positively influence perceived issue importance.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:16/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London, England: Macmillan.
4.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
5.
BarnettJ. (2003). Security and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7-17.
6.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BerryC.BrosiusH.-B. (1991). Multiple effects of visual format on TV news learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 519-528. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050607
8.
BorahP. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263.
9.
BrosiusH.-B. (1991). Format effects on comprehension of television news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68, 396-401. doi:10.1177/107769909106800310
10.
BrosiusH.-B.DonsbachW.BirkM. (1996). How do text-picture relations affect the informational effectiveness of television newscasts?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 180-195. doi:10.1080/08838159609364343
11.
BrulleR. J.CarmichaelJ.JenkinsJ. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169-188. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y
12.
ByrneS.HartP. S. (2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In BeckC. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CarneyR. N.LevinJ. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26. doi:10.1023/A:1013176309260
14.
ChildersT. L.HoustonM. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 643-654.
15.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). A Theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x
16.
DiFrancescoD. A.YoungN. (2011). Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cultural Geographies, 18, 517-536. doi:10.1177/1474474010382072
17.
DruckmanJ. N.BolsenT. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.
18.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26-35.
19.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. E. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
20.
DunlapR. E.XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48.
21.
EitelA.ScheiterK.SchülerA. (2013). How Inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451-461. doi:10.1002/acp.2922
22.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC. (2015). Do hostile media perceptions lead to action? The role of hostile media perceptions, political efficacy, and ideology in predicting climate change activism. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650214565914
23.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.MilosevicT. (2015). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662515595348.
24.
FinkelS. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891-913. doi:10.2307/2111186
25.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
26.
GeiseS.BadenC. (2015). Putting the image back into the frame: Modeling the linkage between visual communication and frame-processing theory. Communication Theory, 25(1), 46-69. doi:10.1111/comt.12048
27.
GraberD. A. (1996). Say it with pictures. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 85-96.
28.
GriffinM. (2001). Camera as witness, image as sign: The study of visual communication in communication research. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 24, pp. 433-463). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
HarrisonK.TaylorL. D.MarskeA. L. (2006). Women’s and men’s eating behavior following exposure to ideal-body images and text. Communication Research, 33, 507-529. doi:10.1177/0093650206293247
30.
HartP. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28-51. doi:10.1177/1075547010366400
31.
HartP. S. (2013). The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 785-798. doi:10.1177/0963662513482268
32.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. Network News. Science Communication, 36, 325-351. doi:10.1177/1075547013520239
33.
HartP. S.FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2015). Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 37, 506-532. doi:10.1177/1075547015592067
34.
HartP. S.LeiserowitzA. A. (2009). Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release of The Day After Tomorrow. Environmental Communication, 3, 355-366. doi:10.1080/17524030903265823
35.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
36.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C.MyersT. A. (2015). Public attention to science and political news and support for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 5, 541-545. doi:10.1038/nclimate2577
37.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
38.
IyengarS. (1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
JenkinM.HarrisL. (Eds.). (2001). Vision and attention (2001 ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
41.
KellstedtP. M.ZahranS.VedlitzA. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113-126. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
42.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.CarpentierF. D.ZillmannD. (2003). Effects of salience dimensions of informational utility on selective exposure to online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 91-108.
43.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61, 349-368. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x
44.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167. doi:10.1002/bdm.492
45.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.
46.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
47.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 45-72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
48.
LesterL.CottleS. (2009). Visualizing climate change: Television news and ecological citizenship. International Journal of Communication, 3, 920-936.
49.
MaibachE. W.PriestH. (2009). No more “Business as Usual”: Addressing climate change through constructive engagement. Science Communication, 30, 299-304.
50.
MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: A public health perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 488-500. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016
51.
MarkowitzE. M.SlovicP.VästfjällD.HodgesS. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 397-406.
52.
MetagJ.SchäferM. S.FüchslinT.BarsuhnT.KönigslöwK. K. (2016). Perceptions of climate change imagery evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Science Communication, 38, 197-227. doi:10.1177/1075547016635181
53.
MoserS. C.DillingL. (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
55.
NisbetE. C.HartP. S.MyersT.EllithorpeM. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63, 766-785. doi:10.1111/jcom.12040
56.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.
57.
NisbetM. C.KotcherJ. E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797
58.
OckwellD.WhitmarshL.O’NeillS. J. (2009). Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation. Science Communication, 30, 305-327. doi:10.1177/1075547008328969
59.
O’NeillS. J. (2013). Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum, 49, 10-19. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.030
60.
O’NeillS. J.BoykoffM.NiemeyerS.DayS. A. (2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 23, 413-421. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006
61.
O’NeillS. J.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It” Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355-379. doi:10.1177/1075547008329201
PowellT. E.BoomgaardenH. G.De SwertK.de VreeseC. H. (2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65, 997-1017. doi:10.1111/jcom.12184
65.
RogeljJ.MeinshausenM.KnuttiR. (2012). Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature: Climate Change, 2, 248-253. doi:10.1038/nclimate1385
66.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (2003). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
67.
RudolphT. J.GanglA.StevensD. (2000). The effects of efficacy and emotions on campaign involvement. Journal of Politics, 62, 1189-1197.
68.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
69.
SchillD. (2012). The visual image and the political image: A review of visual communication research in the field of political communication. Review of Communication, 12, 118-142. doi:10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
70.
SchnotzW. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 101-120. doi:/10.1023/A:1013136727916
71.
SchuldtJ. P.KonrathS. H.SchwarzN. (2011). “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 115-124. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq073
72.
SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
73.
SmithN. W.JoffeH. (2009). Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 647-663. doi:10.1080/13669870802586512
74.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
75.
StedmanR. C.DavidsonD. J.WellsteadA. M. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 24, 1393-1404. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00534.x
76.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
77.
VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293-301. doi:10.1002/acp.1417
78.
VidmarN.RokeachM. (1974). Archie Bunker’s Bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication, 24, 36-47. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00353.x
79.
WeaverD. (1991). Issue salience and public opinion: Are there consequences of agenda-setting?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3, 53-68. doi:10.1093/ijpor/3.1.53
80.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349. doi:10.1080/03637759209376276
81.
WitteK. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113-134. doi:10.1080/03637759409376328
