How Effective Are Concrete and Abstract Climate Change Images? The Moderating Role of Construal Level in Climate Change Visual Communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

climate change construal-level theory imagery visual communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloodhart

Maibach

Myers

Zhao

(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

Brody

Grover

Vedlitz

(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

Broomell

S. B.

Budescu

D. V.

Por

H.-H.

(2015). Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67-73.

Brügger

Dessai

Devine-Wright

Morton

T. A.

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031-1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760

Brügger

Morton

T. A.

Dessai

(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

Burgoon

E. M.

Henderson

M. D.

Markman

A. 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

Chang

Zhang

Xie

G.-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

Chapman

D. A.

Corner

Webster

Markowitz

E. 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

Corner

Markowitz

Pidgeon

(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 Groot

J. I.

Steg

. (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.

Druckman

J. N.

McGrath

M. 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.

Duan

Zwickle

Takahashi

(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.

Ejelöv

Hansla

Bergquist

Nilsson

(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.

Evans

Milfont

T. L.

Lawrence

(2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental Change, 25, 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013

15.

Fagan

Huang

(2020, October 16). Many globally are as concerned about climate change as about the spread of infectious diseases. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/16/many-globally-are-as-concerned-about-climate-change-as-about-the-spread-of-infectious-diseases/

16.

Feldman

Hart

P. 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.

Fujita

Carnevale

J. 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.

Geiger

Middlewood

Swim

(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.

Gifford

Comeau

L. 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.

Gifford

Nilsson

(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.

Goldsmith

Newman

G. E.

Dhar

(2016). Mental representation changes the evaluation of green product benefits. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 847-850. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3019

22.

Haden

V. R.

Niles

M. T.

Lubell

Perlman

Jackson

L. 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.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(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.

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(3), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903265823

25.

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(6), 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646

26.

Jones

Hine

D. W.

Marks

A. 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.

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: An International Journal, 28(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x

28.

Knez

(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.

Ledgerwood

Trope

Chaiken

(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.

Leiserowitz

(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.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

Rosenthal

Kotcher

Bergquist

Ballew

M. T.

Goldberg

M. H.

Gustafson

(2020). Climate change in the American mind: November 2019. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z3wtx

32.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Feinberg

Howe

(2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April 2013. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298705

33.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1433-1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

34.

Liberman

Förster

(2011). Estimates of spatial distance: A construal level theory perspective. In Schubert

T. W.

Maass

(Eds.), Spatial dimensions of social thought (pp. 109-128). De Gruyter Mouton.

35.

Liberman

Trope

(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.

Liberman

Trope

McCrea

S. M.

Sherman

S. 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.

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

(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.

Maglio

S. J.

Trope

Liberman

(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.

McDonald

R. I.

Chai

H. Y.

Newell

B. 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.

Metag

Schaefer

M. S.

Fuechslin

Barsuhn

Kleinen-von Konigslow

(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.

Milfont

T. 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.

Miyamoto

Nisbett

R. E.

Masuda

(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.

Nerlich

Jaspal

(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-Cole

S. 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.

Nicolaij

Hendrickx

(2003). The influence of temporal distance of negative consequences on the evaluation of environmental risks. In Hendrickx

Jager

Steg

(Eds.), Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life situations. University of Groningen.

46.

O’Neill

Nicholson-Cole

(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’Neill

Williams

H. T.

Kurz

Wiersma

Boykoff

(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

48.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010, August). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419. http://sjdm.org/~baron/journal/10/10630a/jdm10630a.pdf

49.

Pew Research Center. (2019, November 22). One-in-four Americans say they always live in ways that protect environment. U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ps_11-25-19_climate-energy-00-06/

50.

Rebich-Hespanha

Rice

R. E.

Montello

D. R.

Retzloff

Tien

Hespanha

J. 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.

Reczek

R. W.

Trudel

White

(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.

Rickard

L. N.

Schuldt

J. P.

Eosco

G. M.

Scherer

C. W.

Daziano

R. 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.

Rickard

L. N.

Yang

Z. J.

Schuldt

J. 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.

Roh

Rickard

L. N.

McComas

K. A.

Decker

D. 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.

Ryan

Gannon-Slater

Culbertson

M. 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.

Sacchi

Riva

Aceto

(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.

Scannell

Gifford

(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.

Schoenefeld

J. J.

McCauley

M. 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.

Schuldt

J. P.

Rickard

L. N.

Yang

Z. 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.

Singh

A. S.

Zwickle

Bruskotter

J. T.

Wilson

(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.

Smith

N. W.

Joffe

(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.

Spence

Pidgeon

(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

63.

Spence

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

64.

Steg

Perlaviciute

Van der Werff

Lurvink

(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.

Torelli

C. J.

Kaikati

A. 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.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

67.

Trope

Liberman

(2012). Construal level theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 118-134). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n7

68.

Trope

Liberman

Wakslak

(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

69.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Census regions and divisions of the United States. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sahie/reference-maps/2017/us-regdiv.pdf

70.

Vallacher

R. R.

Wegner

D. 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.

Vallacher

R. R.

Wegner

D. 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

72.

Wakslak

Trope

(2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02250.x

73.

Willis

G. B.

(2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.