In this study, we look at how different types of flood images and political signals in news stories shape our perceptions of flooding and climate change, as well as what we think we can do about it.

Types of Images Matter: When people saw dramatic photos of floods (episodic imagery), they felt more threatened by flooding than when they saw maps and graphs (thematic imagery). However, neither type of image significantly changed how people felt about the threat of climate change overall, and neither did the use of images reduce the political divide between how liberals and conservative feel towards climate change risks.

Party Cues Lower Perceived Threat: Interestingly, when political party positions were included in the stories, people felt less threatened by the flooding. So, telling people that Republicans are more skeptical of the effects of climate change on flooding (and vice versa for Democrats) can dampen the sense of danger, possibly because political polarization affects how seriously people take these issues.

Link Between Perceived Threat and Action: When people felt more threatened by flooding, they felt more inclined towards taking collective action on climate change (collective efficacy). This belief in collective action was then linked to a greater intention to engage in political activities to combat climate change. So: focusing more on concrete threats (like flooding, or air pollution) may be more effective than talking about climate change more broadly.

All told, when crafting messages about climate change, especially for a polarized audience, it could be useful to use vivid images to highlight specific threats like flooding and to be mindful of how political signals can influence public perception. By doing so, we can help bridge the gap between understanding the risks and taking action to address them.