The Impact of Climate Change–Related Imagery and Text on Public Opinion and Behavior Change

Abstract

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.

Keywords

visual communication environmental communication climate change efficacy issue importance behavior change

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:16/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London, England: Macmillan.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03

Barnett

(2003). Security and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7-17.

Baumgartner

F. R.

Jones

B. D.

(1993). Agendas and instability in American politics (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berry

Brosius

H.-B.

(1991). Multiple effects of visual format on TV news learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 519-528. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050607

Borah

(2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263.

Brosius

H.-B.

(1991). Format effects on comprehension of television news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68, 396-401. doi:10.1177/107769909106800310

10.

Brosius

H.-B.

Donsbach

Birk

(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.

Brulle

R. J.

Carmichael

Jenkins

J. 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.

Byrne

Hart

P. S.

(2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In Beck

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Carney

R. N.

Levin

J. R.

(2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26. doi:10.1023/A:1013176309260

14.

Childers

T. L.

Houston

M. J.

(1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 643-654.

15.

Chong

Druckman

J. 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.

DiFrancesco

D. A.

Young

(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.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.

18.

Dunlap

R. E.

McCright

A. M.

(2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26-35.

19.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. E.

(1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

20.

Dunlap

R. E.

Xiao

McCright

A. M.

(2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48.

21.

Eitel

Scheiter

Schüler

(2013). How Inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451-461. doi:10.1002/acp.2922

22.

Feldman

Hart

P. S.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

(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.

Feldman

Hart

P. S.

Milosevic

(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.

Finkel

S. 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.

Garrett

R. 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.

Geise

Baden

(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.

Graber

D. A.

(1996). Say it with pictures. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 85-96.

28.

Griffin

(2001). Camera as witness, image as sign: The study of visual communication in communication research. In Gudykunst

W. B.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 24, pp. 433-463). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Harrison

Taylor

L. D.

Marske

A. 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.

Hart

P. 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.

Hart

P. 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.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. Network News. Science Communication, 36, 325-351. doi:10.1177/1075547013520239

33.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(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.

Hart

P. S.

Leiserowitz

A. 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.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. 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.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

Myers

T. 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.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

38.

Iyengar

(1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Jenkin

Harris

(Eds.). (2001). Vision and attention (2001 ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Jones

B. D.

Baumgartner

F. R.

(2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.

41.

Kellstedt

P. M.

Zahran

Vedlitz

(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-Westerwick

Carpentier

F. D.

Zillmann

(2003). Effects of salience dimensions of informational utility on selective exposure to online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 91-108.

43.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Meng

(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.

Kogut

Ritov

(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.

Kogut

Ritov

(2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.

46.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

47.

Leiserowitz

(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.

Lester

Cottle

(2009). Visualizing climate change: Television news and ecological citizenship. International Journal of Communication, 3, 920-936.

49.

Maibach

E. W.

Priest

(2009). No more “Business as Usual”: Addressing climate change through constructive engagement. Science Communication, 30, 299-304.

50.

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(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.

Markowitz

E. M.

Slovic

Västfjäll

Hodges

S. D.

(2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 397-406.

52.

Metag

Schäfer

M. S.

Füchslin

Barsuhn

Königslöw

K. 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.

Moser

S. C.

Dilling

(2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Myers

T. A.

Nisbet

M. C.

Maibach

E. W.

Leiserowitz

A. 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.

Nisbet

E. C.

Hart

P. S.

Myers

Ellithorpe

(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.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.

57.

Nisbet

M. C.

Kotcher

J. E.

(2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797

58.

Ockwell

Whitmarsh

O’Neill

S. J.

(2009). Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation. Science Communication, 30, 305-327. doi:10.1177/1075547008328969

59.

O’Neill

S. 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’Neill

S. J.

Boykoff

Niemeyer

Day

S. 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’Neill

S. J.

Nicholson-Cole

(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

62.

O’Neill

S. J.

Smith

(2014). Climate change and visual imagery. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 73-87. doi:10.1002/wcc.249

63.

Pew Research Center. (2016, January 22). Budget deficit slips as public priority. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2016/01/22/budget-deficit-slips-as-public-priority/

64.

Powell

T. E.

Boomgaarden

H. G.

De Swert

de Vreese

C. 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.

Rogelj

Meinshausen

Knutti

(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.

Rosenstone

S. J.

Hansen

J. M.

(2003). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

67.

Rudolph

T. J.

Gangl

Stevens

(2000). The effects of efficacy and emotions on campaign involvement. Journal of Politics, 62, 1189-1197.

68.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(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.

Schill

(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.

Schnotz

(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.

Schuldt

J. P.

Konrath

S. H.

Schwarz

(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.

Slovic

(2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.

73.

Smith

N. W.

Joffe

(2009). Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 647-663. doi:10.1080/13669870802586512

74.

Spence

Pidgeon

(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.

Stedman

R. C.

Davidson

D. J.

Wellstead

A. 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.

Verba

Nie

N. H.

(1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

77.

Verhoeven

Perfetti

(2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293-301. doi:10.1002/acp.1417

78.

Vidmar

Rokeach

(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.

Weaver

(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.

Witte

(1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349. doi:10.1080/03637759209376276

81.

Witte

(1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113-134. doi:10.1080/03637759409376328