Do different types of extreme weather photos change how we see climate risk?

The short version

Vivid flood photos made flooding feel more threatening, and that sense of threat moved people toward collective political action on climate. Mentioning party positions weakened the effect.

What we did

We tested how the images and political signals in news stories shape views of flooding and climate change. Some stories showed dramatic photos of floods, while others showed maps and graphs. Some stories also mentioned where Republicans and Democrats stood on the issue.

What we found

• Dramatic flood photos made people feel more threatened by flooding than maps and graphs did. Neither kind of image changed views of climate change overall or narrowed the gap between liberals and conservatives.
• 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.
• Feeling more threatened increased people’s belief that we can act together on climate change, which in turn predicted their intentions to take political action.

Why it matters

For polarized audiences, focusing on concrete threats such as flooding or air pollution may work better than talking about climate change in general. Communicators should also watch how partisan cues can dull a sense of climate threat.

Cite the paper

Hart, P. S., Feldman, L., Choi, S., Zhang, A. L., & Hegland, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231199972

Copy citationRead the paperAccepted version (PDF)