IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i2p21582440221103857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeing Risks or Solutions: Psychological Distance and Ecological Worldview Moderated the Effect of Disgust Images on Attention to Environmental Messages

Author

Listed:
  • Zijian Harrison Gong
  • Haoran Chu

Abstract

Disgust imageries often shun readers away from attending to important environmental messages. Based on the Limited Capacity Model and Construal Level Theory, an eye-tracking experiment was conducted to test the influence of psychological distance and disgust images on attention to environmental messages. Results indicated that psychological distance moderated disgust images’ influence on attention to environmental communication messages. Disgust images increased attention to environmental messages only under the far distance condition. Additionally, disgust images increased attention to risk information but not efficacy information under the far distance condition, whereas non-disgust images increased attention to efficacy information under the close distance condition. All effects reported above were more salient among participants holding a more pro-environment worldview. Theoretical advances include the use of far psychological distance to reduce defensive reactions and the differential impact of disgust images on risk and efficacy information at the close or far psychological distance. Applied implications highlight the potentials of disgusting/non-disgusting images in emphasizing risk or efficacy information and reducing message avoidance.

Suggested Citation

  • Zijian Harrison Gong & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Seeing Risks or Solutions: Psychological Distance and Ecological Worldview Moderated the Effect of Disgust Images on Attention to Environmental Messages," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221103857
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221103857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221103857
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221103857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. W. Smith & H. Joffe, 2009. "Climate change in the British press: the role of the visual," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 647-663, July.
    2. Ran Duan & Adam Zwickle & Bruno Takahashi, 2017. "A construal-level perspective of climate change images in US newspapers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 345-360, June.
    3. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    4. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    5. P Sol Hart & Lauren Feldman, 2016. "The Influence of Climate Change Efficacy Messages and Efficacy Beliefs on Intended Political Participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    7. Adrian Brügger & Suraje Dessai & Patrick Devine-Wright & Thomas A. Morton & Nicholas F. Pidgeon, 2015. "Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1031-1037, December.
    8. Mykolas Simas Poškus & Rasa Pilkauskaitė Valickienė & Arvydas Kuzinas, 2019. "The Effects of Descriptive Imagery and Appeals on Emotions and Intentions Related to Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Nicole Betz & John D. Coley, 2022. "Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Roberta Weiner & Sarah P. Church & Junyu Lu & Laura A. Esman & Jackie M. Getson & Michelle Fleckenstein & Brennan Radulski & Pranay Ranjan & Emily Usher & Linda S. Prokopy & Linda Pfeiffer, 2021. "Climate change coverage in the United States media during the 2017 hurricane season: implications for climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Mary Guillard & Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi & Oscar Navarro, 2021. "Encouraging Individuals to Adapt to Climate Change: Relations between Coping Strategies and Psychological Distance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Anne K. Armstrong & Marianne E. Krasny, 2020. "Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.
    6. David V. Boivin & Olivier Boiral, 2022. "So Close, Yet So Far Away: Exploring the Role of Psychological Distance from Climate Change on Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Mohamed Didi Alaoui & Véronique Cova, 2021. "La distance psychologique comme outil actionnable par les managers," Post-Print hal-03126709, HAL.
    8. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    9. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Ran Duan & Christian Bombara, 2022. "Visualizing climate change: the role of construal level, emotional valence, and visual literacy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    12. Iddrisu Amadu & Charles Atanga Adongo, 2022. "Climate Action (Goal 13): The role of climate beliefs, health security and tourism prioritisation in 30 Sub-Saharan African countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-25, April.
    13. K.C. Busch & Regina Ayala Chávez, 2022. "Adolescent framings of climate change, psychological distancing, and implications for climate change concern and behavior," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Haoran Chu & Janet Yang, 2020. "Their Economy and Our Health: Communicating Climate Change to the Divided American Public," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Paul M. Lohmann & Andreas Kontoleon, 2023. "Do Flood and Heatwave Experiences Shape Climate Opinion? Causal Evidence from Flooding and Heatwaves in England and Wales," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 263-304, October.
    16. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    17. Sebastian Brumann & Ulrike Ohl & Johannes Schulz, 2022. "Inquiry-Based Learning on Climate Change in Upper Secondary Education: A Design-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-29, March.
    18. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Florian Justwan & Bert Baumgaertner & Juliet E Carlisle & Emma Carson & Jordan Kizer, 2019. "The effect of trust and proximity on vaccine propensity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221103857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.