Relying on construal-level theory, we experimentally test how the level of concreteness and abstraction of climate change imagery affects climate change responses among a diverse sample of U.S. adults (N = 448). Results show that concrete visual messaging practices cannot directly lead to increased level of concern or behavioral intentions. Instead, they may backfire for conservatives, less-efficacious people, and people who are low in proenvironmental values. Our findings contribute to the effective climate change visual communication literature by incorporating a construal-level perspective, while also offering practical implications regarding how to use visuals more effectively to engage the public with climate change.
BloodhartB.MaibachE.MyersT.ZhaoX. (2015). Local climate experts: The influence of local TV weather information on climate change perceptions. PLOS ONE, 10(11), Article e0141526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141526
2.
BrodyS.GroverH.VedlitzA. (2012). Examining the willingness of Americans to alter behaviour to mitigate climate change. Climate Policy, 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579261
3.
BroomellS. B.BudescuD. V.PorH.-H. (2015). Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67-73.
4.
BrüggerA.DessaiS.Devine-WrightP.MortonT. A.PidgeonN. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031-1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760
5.
BrüggerA.MortonT. A.DessaiS. (2016). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004
6.
BurgoonE. M.HendersonM. D.MarkmanA. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 501-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497964
7.
ChangH.ZhangL.XieG.-X. (2015). Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.994731
8.
ChapmanD. A.CornerA.WebsterR.MarkowitzE. M. (2016). Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environmental Change, 41, 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.003
9.
CornerA.MarkowitzE.PidgeonN. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411-422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269
10.
De GrootJ. I.StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
11.
DruckmanJ. N.McGrathM. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
12.
DuanR.ZwickleA.TakahashiB. (2017). A construal-level perspective of climate change images in US newspapers. Climatic Change, 142(3-4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1945-9
13.
EjelövE.HanslaA.BergquistM.NilssonA. (2018). Regulating emotional responses to climate change–A construal level perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00629
14.
EvansL.MilfontT. L.LawrenceJ. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental Change, 25, 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868
17.
FujitaK.CarnevaleJ. J. (2012). Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 248-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412449169
18.
GeigerN.MiddlewoodB.SwimJ. (2017). Psychological, social, and cultural barriers to communicating about climate change. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.377
19.
GiffordR.ComeauL. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
20.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
21.
GoldsmithK.NewmanG. E.DharR. (2016). Mental representation changes the evaluation of green product benefits. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 847-850. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3019
22.
HadenV. R.NilesM. T.LubellM.PerlmanJ.JacksonL. E. (2012). Global and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change?PloS ONE, 7(12), Article e52882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052882
23.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016). The impact of climate change–related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Science Communication, 38(4), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357
24.
HartP. S.LeiserowitzA. A. (2009). Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release ofThe Day After Tomorrow. Environmental Communication, 3(3), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903265823
25.
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(6), 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
26.
JonesC.HineD. W.MarksA. D. (2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601
27.
KellstedtP. M.ZahranS.VedlitzA. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
28.
KnezI. (2016). Is climate change a moral issue? Effects of egoism and altruism on pro-environmental behavior. Current Urban Studies, 4(2), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2016.42012
29.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.ChaikenS. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 32-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019843
30.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
31.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.RosenthalS.KotcherJ.BergquistP.BallewM. T.GoldbergM. H.GustafsonA. (2020). Climate change in the American mind: November 2019. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z3wtx
32.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.FeinbergG.HoweP. (2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April 2013. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298705
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2011). Estimates of spatial distance: A construal level theory perspective. In SchubertT. W.MaassA. (Eds.), Spatial dimensions of social thought (pp. 109-128). De Gruyter Mouton.
35.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
36.
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
37.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007
38.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013). Distance from a distance: Psychological distance reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 644-657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030258
39.
McDonaldR. I.ChaiH. Y.NewellB. R. (2015). Personal experience and the “psychological distance” of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003
40.
MetagJ.SchaeferM. S.FuechslinT.BarsuhnT.Kleinen-von KonigslowK. (2016). Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Science Communication, 38(2), 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181
41.
MilfontT. L. (2012). The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1003-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x
42.
MiyamotoY.NisbettR. E.MasudaT. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17(2), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01673.x
43.
NerlichB.JaspalR. (2014). Images of extreme weather: Symbolising human responses to climate change. Science as Culture, 23(2), 253-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.846311
44.
Nicholson-ColeS. A. (2005). Representing climate change futures: A critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.05.002
45.
NicolaijS.HendrickxL. (2003). The influence of temporal distance of negative consequences on the evaluation of environmental risks. In HendrickxL.JagerW.StegL. (Eds.), Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life situations. University of Groningen.
46.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
47.
O’NeillS.WilliamsH. T.KurzT.WiersmaB.BoykoffM. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535
Rebich-HespanhaS.RiceR. E.MontelloD. R.RetzloffS.TienS.HespanhaJ. P. (2015). Image themes and frames in US print news stories about climate change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 491-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.983534
51.
ReczekR. W.TrudelR.WhiteK. (2018). Focusing on the forest or the trees: How abstract versus concrete construal level predicts responses to eco-friendly products. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.06.003
52.
RickardL. N.SchuldtJ. P.EoscoG. M.SchererC. W.DazianoR. A. (2017). The proof is in the picture: The influence of imagery and experience in perceptions of hurricane messaging. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(3), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0048.1
53.
RickardL. N.YangZ. J.SchuldtJ. P. (2016). Here and now, there and then: How “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 38, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.003
54.
RohS.RickardL. N.McComasK. A.DeckerD. J. (2018). Public understanding of One Health messages: The role of temporal framing. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 185-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516670805
55.
RyanK.Gannon-SlaterN.CulbertsonM. J. (2012). Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small-and medium-scale evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012441499
56.
SacchiS.RivaP.AcetoA. (2016). Myopic about climate change: Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.006
57.
ScannellL.GiffordR. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196
58.
SchoenefeldJ. J.McCauleyM. R. (2016). Local is not always better: The impact of climate information on values, behavior and policy support. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(4), 724-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0288-y
59.
SchuldtJ. P.RickardL. N.YangZ. J. (2018). Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001
60.
SinghA. S.ZwickleA.BruskotterJ. T.WilsonR. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011
61.
SmithN. W.JoffeH. (2009). Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5), 647-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802586512
62.
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
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.Van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
65.
TorelliC. J.KaikatiA. M. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: The role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013836
66.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
67.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2012). Construal level theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 118-134). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n7
68.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3
71.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660
