This study uses climate change visuals to test to what extent individuals’ threat and efficacy perceptions of climate change interact with their abstract and concrete mind styles to influence their responses to the issue. Findings from online experiments reveal that abstract images intensified the negative effect of threat perceptions on psychological distance as well as the positive effect of vulnerability perception on behavioral intention. Pairing abstract images with emphasis on behaviors’ desirability also promoted intention to act. When viewing abstract images, higher levels of response efficacy raised behavioral intention among people who valued behaviors’ desirability (vs. feasibility).
AcharC.AgrawalN.HsiehM. H. (2020). Fear of detection and efficacy of prevention: Using construal level to encourage health behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(3), 582–598.
2.
AslamA.RanaI. A. (2022). Impact of the built environment on climate change risk perception and psychological distancing: Empirical evidence from Islamabad, Pakistan. Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 228–240.
3.
BenschopN.NuijtenA. L.KeilM.RohdeK. I.LeeJ. S.CommandeurH. R. (2021). Construal level theory and escalation of commitment. Theory and Decision, 91(1), 135–151.
4.
BockarjovaM.StegL. (2014). Can Protection Motivation Theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Global Environmental Change, 28, 276–288.
5.
BroomellS. B.BudescuD. V.PorH.-H. (2015). Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67–73.
6.
BrüggerA.MortonT. A.DessaiS. (2016). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125–142.
7.
BubeckP.OsberghausD.ThiekenA. H. (2023). Explaining changes in threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and flood risk-reducing behavior using panel data from a nation-wide survey in Germany. Environment and Behavior, 55(4), 211–235.
8.
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.
9.
CarreraP.FernándezI.MuñozD.CaballeroA. (2020). Using abstractness to confront challenges: How the abstract construal level increases people’s willingness to perform desirable but demanding actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(2), 339–349.
10.
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.
11.
ChenM. F. (2016). Extending the theory of planned behavior model to explain people’s energy savings and carbon reduction behavioral intentions to mitigate climate change in Taiwan–moral obligation matters. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1746–1753.
12.
ChenF.DaiS.ZhuY.XuH. (2020). Will concerns for ski tourism promote pro-environmental behaviour? An implication of protection motivation theory. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(3), 303–313.
13.
ChenM.WangJ.YinZ. (2024). Identifying the active ingredients of climate change narratives: A model of temporal perspective, narrator perspective, and psychological distance. Science Communication, 46(2), 123–150.
14.
ChenM. F. (2020). Effects of psychological distance perception and psychological factors on pro-environmental behaviors in Taiwan: Application of construal level theory. International Sociology, 35(1), 70–89.
15.
ChenS.WanF.YangS. (2022). Normative misperceptions regarding pro-environmental behavior: Mediating roles of outcome efficacy and problem awareness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101917.
16.
ChuH.YangJ. Z. (2020). Risk or efficacy? How psychological distance influences climate change engagement. Risk Analysis, 40(4), 758–770.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Academic Press.
18.
DahlT.FløttumK. (2017). Verbal–visual harmony or dissonance? A news values analysis of multimodal news texts on climate change. Discourse, Context & Media, 20, 124–131.
19.
DiFrancescoD. A.YoungN. (2011). Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cultural Geographies, 18(4), 517–536.
20.
EttingerJ.WaltonP.PainterJ.DiBlasiT. (2021). Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Climatic Change, 164(1), 19.
21.
FauvilleG.QueirozA. C. M.BailensonJ. N. (2020). Virtual reality as a promising tool to promote climate change awareness. In KimJ.SongH. (Eds.), Technology and health (pp. 91–108). Elsevier Academic Press.
22.
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.
23.
GeigerN.SwimJ. K.FraserJ. (2017). Creating a climate for change: Interventions, efficacy and public discussion about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 104–116.
24.
GhanianM.GhoochaniO. M.DehghanpourM.TaqipourM.TaheriF.CottonM. (2020). Understanding farmers’ climate adaptation intention in Iran: A protection-motivation extended model. Land Use Policy, 94, 104553.
25.
GiffordR.ComeauL. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301–1307.
26.
GkargkavouziA.HalkosG.MatsioriS. (2019). Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145–156.
27.
GulliverR.ChapmanC. M.SollyK. N.SchultzT. (2020). Testing the impact of images in environmental campaigns. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101468.
28.
GumasingM. J. J.PrasetyoY. T.OngA. K. S.NadlifatinR. (2022). Determination of factors affecting the response efficacy of Filipinos under Typhoon Conson 2021 (Jolina): An extended protection motivation theory approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 70, 102759.
29.
HanD.DuhachekA.AgrawalN. (2016). Coping and construal level matching drives health message effectiveness via response efficacy or self-efficacy enhancement. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 429–447.
30.
HartP. S.FeldmanL.ChoiS.ZhangA. L.HeglandA. (2023). The influence of flooding imagery and party cues on perceived threat, collective efficacy, and intentions for political action to address climate change. Science Communication, 45(5), 627–664.
31.
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.
32.
IbrahimH.Al-AjlouniM. M. Q. (2018). Sustainable consumption: Insights from the protection motivation (PMT), deontic justice (DJT) and construal level (CLT) theories. Management Decision, 56(3), 610–633.
33.
JiangL. A.FengY.ZhouW.YangZ.SuX. (2024). Too anthropomorphized to keep distance: The role of social psychological distance on meat inclinations. Appetite, 196, 107272.
34.
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.
35.
KimK. (2024). Communicating climate change in the Era of anxiety: Testing a double-moderated-mediation model. Environmental Communication, 18(7), 945–966.
36.
KimS.JeongS. H.HwangY. (2013). Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of American and Korean students: The application of the theory of reasoned action and protection motivation theory. Science Communication, 35(2), 168–188.
37.
KimS.TamL. (2024). Unpacking publics’ disengagement and information behaviors: Roles of psychological distance, feasibility and desirability in an environmental sustainability issue. Public Relations Review, 50(4), 102491.
KotheE. J.LingM.NorthM.KlasA.MullanB. A.NovoradovskayaL. (2019). Protection motivation theory and pro-environmental behaviour: A systematic mapping review. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(4), 411–432.
40.
LacroixK.GiffordR.ChenA. (2019). Developing and validating the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 9–18.
41.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205.
42.
LeeH.DengX.UnnavaH. R.FujitaK. (2014). Monochrome forests and colorful trees: The effect of black-and-white versus color imagery on construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1015–1032.
43.
LeeS. J. (2019). The role of construal level in message effects research: A review and future directions. Communication Theory, 29(3), 319–338.
44.
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.
45.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205.
46.
LiuY.LiuJ.SuY. (2021). Low-carbon awareness and behaviors: Effects of exposure to climate change impact photographs. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211031487.
47.
MaltbyK. M.SimpsonS. D.TurnerR. A. (2021). Scepticism and perceived self-efficacy influence fishers’ low risk perceptions of climate change. Climate Risk Management, 31, 100267.
48.
MarikyanD.PapagiannidisS. (2023). Protection motivation theory: A review. In PapagiannidisS. (Ed.), TheoryHub Book: This handbook is based on the online theory resource: TheoryHub (pp. 78–93). TheoryHub Book.
49.
MetagJ. (2020). Climate change visuals: A review of their effects on cognition, emotion and behaviour. In HolmesD. C.RichardsonL. M. (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 153–160). Edward Elgar.
50.
MetagJ.SchäferM. S.FüchslinT.BarsuhnT.Kleinen-von KönigslöwK. (2016). Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Science Communication, 38(2), 197–227.
51.
MosallaeiA.FeldmanL. (2024). Do you see what I see? Perceptions and effects of image–text congruency in online climate change news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241284596
52.
NurmisJ. (2021). Facing change: Human subjects in climate photojournalism. In WederF.KrainerL.KarmasinM. (Eds.), The sustainability communication reader: A reflective compendium (pp. 161–176). Springer.
53.
O’ConnorJ.KeilM. (2017). The effects of construal level and small wins framing on an individual’s commitment to an environmental initiative. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 1–10.
54.
O’ConnorR. E.BardR. J.FisherA. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471.
55.
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.
56.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002205
57.
PurwantiT. S.SyafrialS.HuangW. C.HartonoB.RahmanM. S.PutritamaraJ. A. (2023). Understanding farmers’ adaptation to climate change: A protection motivation theory application. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 2282210.
58.
QianS.LuY.PengY.ShenC. C.XuH. (2024). Convergence or divergence? A cross-platform analysis of climate change visual content categories, features, and social media engagement on Twitter and Instagram. Public Relations Review, 50(2), 102454.
59.
RainearA. M.ChristensenJ. L. (2017). Protection motivation theory as an explanatory framework for proenvironmental behavioral intentions. Communication Research Reports, 34(3), 239–248.
60.
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.
61.
RogersR. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114.
62.
SagristanoM. D.TropeY.LibermanN. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 364–376.
63.
SchwallerN. L.KelmensonS.BenDorT. K.SpurlockD. (2020). From abstract futures to concrete experiences: How does political ideology interact with threat perception to affect climate adaptation decisions?Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 440–452.
64.
ShiJ.LiZ.ChenL.TangH. (2023). Individual and collective actions against climate change among Chinese adults: The effects of risk, efficacy, and consideration of future consequences. Science Communication, 45(2), 195–224.
65.
SobolK.GirouxM. (2017). The power of negative visualizations: When fear appeals motivate consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 45, 892–893.
66.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.PidgeonN. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 957–972.
67.
StoddardI.AndersonK.CapstickS.CartonW.DepledgeJ.FacerK.GoughC.HacheF.HoolohanC.HultmanM.HällströmN.KarthaS.KlinskyS.KuchlerM.LövbrandE.NasiritousiN.NewellP.PetersG. P.SokonaY.. . . WilliamsM. (2021). Three decades of climate mitigation: Why haven’t we bent the global emissions curve?Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), 653–689.
68.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
69.
TianH.LiuX. (2022). Pro-environmental behavior research: Theoretical progress and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6721.
70.
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.
71.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
72.
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
73.
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
74.
van ValkengoedA. M.StegL.PerlaviciuteG. (2023). The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated. One Earth, 6(4), 362–391.
75.
VieiraJ.CastroS. L.SouzaA. S. (2023). Psychological barriers moderate the attitude-behavior gap for climate change. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0287404.
76.
VillamorG. B.WakelinS. J.DunninghamA.ClintonP. W. (2023). Climate change adaptation behaviour of forest growers in New Zealand: An application of protection motivation theory. Climatic Change, 176(2), 3.
77.
WakslakC. J.TropeY. (2009). Cognitive consequences of affirming the self: The relationship between self-affirmation and object construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 927–932.
78.
WangS.CornerA.ChapmanD.MarkowitzE. (2018). Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(2), e509.
79.
WhiteK.MacDonnellR.DahlD. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485.
80.
WullenkordM. C.JohanssonM.LoyL. S.MenzelC.ReeseG. (2024). Go out or stress out? Exploring nature connectedness and cumulative stressors as resilience and vulnerability factors in different manifestations of climate anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 95, 102278.
81.
WullenkordM. C.OjalaM. (2023). Climate-change worry among two cohorts of late adolescents: Exploring macro and micro worries, coping, and relations to climate engagement, pessimism, and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 90, 102093.
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.
