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

Science Communication

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 415-441

  Hart, P Sol ^a   Feldman, Lauren ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

behavior change; climate change; efficacy; environmental communication; issue importance; visual communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978681977     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547016655357     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. I.Ajzen (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:16/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. A.Bandura (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
3. A.Bandura (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London, England: Macmillan.
4. A.Bandura (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
5. J.Barnett (2003). Security and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7-17.
6. F.R.BaumgartnerB.D.Jones (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. C.BerryH.-B.Brosius (1991). Multiple effects of visual format on TV news learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 519-528. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050607
8. P.Borah (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263.
9. H.-B.Brosius (1991). Format effects on comprehension of television news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68, 396-401. doi:10.1177/107769909106800310
10. H.-B.BrosiusW.DonsbachM.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. R.J.BrulleJ.CarmichaelJ.C.Jenkins (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. S.ByrneP.S.Hart (2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. R.N.CarneyJ.R.Levin (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26. doi:10.1023/A:1013176309260
14. T.L.ChildersM.J.Houston (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 643-654.
15. D.ChongJ.N.Druckman (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. D.A.DiFrancescoN.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. J.N.DruckmanT.Bolsen (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.
18. R.E.DunlapA.M.McCright (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26-35.
19. R.E.DunlapK.E.Van Liere (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
20. R.E.DunlapC.XiaoA.M.McCright (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48.
21. A.EitelK.ScheiterA.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. L.FeldmanP.S.HartA.LeiserowitzE.MaibachC.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. L.FeldmanP.S.HartT.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. S.E.Finkel (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891-913. doi:10.2307/2111186
25. R.K.Garrett (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. S.GeiseC.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. D.A.Graber (1996). Say it with pictures. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 85-96.
28. M.Griffin (2001). Camera as witness, image as sign: The study of visual communication in communication research. In (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 24, pp. 433-463). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. K.HarrisonL.D.TaylorA.L.Marske (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. P.S.Hart (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. P.S.Hart (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. P.S.HartL.Feldman (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. Network News. Science Communication, 36, 325-351. doi:10.1177/1075547013520239
33. P.S.HartL.FeldmanA.LeiserowitzE.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. P.S.HartA.A.Leiserowitz (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. P.S.HartE.C.Nisbet (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. P.S.HartE.C.NisbetT.A.Myers (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. A.F.Hayes (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
38. S.Iyengar (1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. M.JenkinL.Harris (Eds.). (2001). Vision and attention (2001 ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
40. B.D.JonesF.R.Baumgartner (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
41. P.M.KellstedtS.ZahranA.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. S.Knobloch-WesterwickF.D.CarpentierD.Zillmann (2003). Effects of salience dimensions of informational utility on selective exposure to online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 91-108.
43. S.Knobloch-WesterwickJ.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. T.KogutI.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. T.KogutI.Ritov (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.
46. Z.Kunda (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
47. A.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. L.LesterS.Cottle (2009). Visualizing climate change: Television news and ecological citizenship. International Journal of Communication, 3, 920-936.
49. E.W.MaibachH.Priest (2009). No more “Business as Usual”: Addressing climate change through constructive engagement. Science Communication, 30, 299-304.
50. E.W.MaibachC.Roser-RenoufA.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. E.M.MarkowitzP.SlovicD.VästfjällS.D.Hodges (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 397-406.
52. J.MetagM.S.SchäferT.FüchslinT.BarsuhnK.K.Königslöw (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. S.C.MoserL.Dilling (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54. T.A.MyersM.C.NisbetE.W.MaibachA.A.Leiserowitz (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
55. E.C.NisbetP.S.HartT.MyersM.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. M.C.Nisbet (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.
57. M.C.NisbetJ.E.Kotcher (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797
58. D.OckwellL.WhitmarshS.J.O’Neill (2009). Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation. Science Communication, 30, 305-327. doi:10.1177/1075547008328969
59. S.J.O’Neill (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. S.J.O’NeillM.BoykoffS.NiemeyerS.A.Day (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. S.J.O’NeillS.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. S.J.O’NeillN.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, January22). Budget deficit slips as public priority. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2016/01/22/budget-deficit-slips-as-public-priority/
64. T.E.PowellH.G.BoomgaardenK.De SwertC.H.de Vreese (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. J.RogeljM.MeinshausenR.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. S.J.RosenstoneJ.M.Hansen (2003). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
67. T.J.RudolphA.GanglD.Stevens (2000). The effects of efficacy and emotions on campaign involvement. Journal of Politics, 62, 1189-1197.
68. D.A.ScheufeleD.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. D.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. W.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. J.P.SchuldtS.H.KonrathN.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. P.Slovic (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
73. N.W.SmithH.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. A.SpenceN.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. R.C.StedmanD.J.DavidsonA.M.Wellstead (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. S.VerbaN.H.Nie (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
77. L.VerhoevenC.Perfetti (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293-301. doi:10.1002/acp.1417
78. N.VidmarM.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. D.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. K.Witte (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349. doi:10.1080/03637759209376276
81. K.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