Advertisement

Climate change images produce an attentional bias associated with pro-environmental disposition

  • Joshua M. CarlsonEmail author
  • Betsy R. Lehman
  • Jessica L. Thompson
Short Communication

Abstract

Humans have developed mechanisms to prioritize certain sensory input(s). Emotionally salient stimuli automatically capture observers’ attention at the cost of less salient information. This prioritized processing is called attentional bias. Images of climate change have been found to elicit emotional responses. Yet, to date, there is no research assessing the extent to which climate change-relevant images produce an attentional bias. In a sample of college students (N = 39), we found that (1) climate change-related images capture attention and that (2) this attentional bias is related to individual differences in environmental disposition. Thus, images of climate change are salient—attention grabbing—signals related to pro-environmental orientation.

Keywords

Climate Dot-probe Spatial attention Processing bias Environmental attitudes Environmental cognition 

Notes

Author contributions

JMC and JLT designed the study. BRL collected the data. JMC analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. BRL and JLT provided critical input and feedback on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10339_2019_902_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35039 kb)

References

  1. Aday J, Carlson JM (2018) Extended testing with the dot-probe task increases test–retest reliability and validity. Cogn Process.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0886-1 Google Scholar
  2. Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH (2007) Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychol Bull 133(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brosch T, Sander D, Scherer KR (2007) That baby caught my eye… attention capture by infant faces. Emotion 7(3):685–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell A, Muncer S (2017) Sex difference in awareness of threat: a meta-analysis of sex differences in attentional orienting in the dot probe task. Personal Individ Differ 119:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson JM, Mujica-Parodi LR (2015) Facilitated attentional orienting and delayed disengagement to conscious and nonconscious fearful faces. J Nonverbal Behav 39(1):69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson JM, Reinke KS (2014) Attending to the fear in your eyes: facilitated orienting and delayed disengagement. Cogn Emot 28(8):1398–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson JM, Fee AL, Reinke KS (2009) Backward masked snakes and guns modulate spatial attention. Evol Psychol 7(4):527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson JM, Aday JS, Rubin D (2018) Temporal dynamics in attention bias: effects of sex differences, task timing parameters, and stimulus valence. Cogn Emot.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1536648 Google Scholar
  9. Chapman DA, Corner A, Webster R, Markowitz EM (2016) Climate visuals: a mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Glob Environ Change 41:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz T, Kalof L, Stern PC (2002) Gender, values, and environmentalism. Soc Sci Q 83(1):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver J, Davis G, Ricciardelli P, Kidd P, Maxwell E, Baron-Cohen S (1999) Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Vis Cogn 6:509–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field CB, Barros VR, Mach K, Mastrandrea M (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox E, Griggs L, Mouchlianitis E (2007) The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: are guns noticed as quickly as snakes? Emotion 7(4):691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friesen CK, Kingstone A (1998) The eyes have it: reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychon Bull Rev 5:490–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grafton B, Ang C, MacLeod C (2012) Always look on the bright side of life: the attentional basis of positive affectivity. Eur J Pers 26(2):133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hakamata Y, Lissek S, Bar-Haim Y, Britton JC, Fox NA, Leibenluft E, Ernst M, Pine DS (2010) Attention bias modification treatment: a meta-analysis toward the establishment of novel treatment for anxiety. Biol Psychiatry 68(11):982–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehman B, Thompson J, Davis S, Carlson JM (under review) Affective images of climate changeGoogle Scholar
  20. Leviston Z, Price J, Bishop B (2014) Imagining climate change: the role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses. Eur J Soc Psychol 5:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLeod C, Mathews A (1988) Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Q J Exp Psychol A 40(4):653–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macleod C, Mathews A, Tata P (1986) Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 95(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathews A, Mackintosh B (1998) A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety. Cogn Ther Res 22(6):539–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathews A, MacLeod C (2002) Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety. Cogn Emot 16(3):331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mogg K, Holmes A, Garner M, Bradley BP (2008) Effects of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals. Behav Res Ther 46(5):656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mogg K, Waters AM, Bradley B (2017) Attention bias modification (ABM): review of effects of multisession ABM training on anxiety and threat-related attention in high-anxious individuals. Clin Psychol Sci 5(4):698–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicholson-Cole SA (2005) Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29(3):255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill SJ, Hulme M (2009) An iconic approach for representing climate change. Glob Environ Change 19(4):402–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ohman A, Flykt A, Esteves F (2001) Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. J Exp Psychol Gen 130(3):466–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 30(3):355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenholtz R, Li Y, Nakano L (2007) Measuring visual clutter. J Vis 7(2):11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith KR, Woodward A, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chadee DD, Honda Y, Liu Q, Olwoch JM, Revich B, Sauerborn R (2014) Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co-benefits. Clim Change 709–754Google Scholar
  34. Torrence RD, Wylie E, Carlson JM (2017) The time-course for the capture and hold of visuospatial attention by fearful and happy faces. J Nonverbal Behav 41(2):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber MA, Morrow KA, Rizer WS, Kangas KJ, Carlson JM (2016) Sustained, not habituated, activity in the human amygdala: a pilot fMRI dot-probe study of attentional bias to fearful faces. Cogent Psychol 3(1):1259881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zvielli A, Bernstein A, Koster EH (2015) Temporal dynamics of attentional bias. Clin Psychol Sci 3(5):772–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua M. Carlson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Betsy R. Lehman
    • 1
  • Jessica L. Thompson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceNorthern Michigan UniversityMarquetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication and Performance StudiesNorthern Michigan UniversityMarquetteUSA

Personalised recommendations