Advertisement

How Aesthetic Style Can Influence Reception of Visual Communications of Climate Change

  • Rebecca GreenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Public apathy on the issue of anthropogenic climate change is widespread, with more than half of surveyed Australians in denial that it is happening, and only 46% of Britons agreeing that humans are contributing significantly to the phenomenon. Successful communication of this complex issue is key to engagement, and much existing communication theory focuses on framing, rhetoric, fear and other high level strategies that can lead towards this aim. However, there is little understanding of how these messages and strategies are subsequently translated into designed visual communications (visual artefacts) for public consumption. This paper approaches these strategies and theories from a graphic design perspective, focussing on how the aesthetic style of visual artefacts—designed in line with these strategies—can influence their reception. The phenomenological research in this paper is taken from a larger study into the relationships between three selected real-world anthropogenic climate change visual artefacts, their production by graphic designers, and their reception by a set of viewers. A particular focus is the viewers’ interpretations of the “authority” behind each of the three visual artefacts, and how aesthetic style can influence this interpretation and consequently the trust and subscription to the message itself. This research makes a key contribution to climate change communication across fields such as science communication, sociology and graphic design.

Keywords

Climate change communication Aesthetic style Visual Framing Graphic design Semiotics Professional code 

References

  1. Agid S (2011) How do we transition people from a system that doesn’t want to let them go?: social design and its political contexts. Des Philos Pap 9:187–206Google Scholar
  2. Bartmanski D (2015) Refashioning sociological imagination: linguality, visuality and the iconic turn in cultural sociology. Chin J Sociol 1:136–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger AA (2010) The objects of affection: semiotics and consumer culture. Palgrave Macmillan, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu P (1992) The logic of practice. Stanford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brulle RJ (2010) From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: environmental communication for civic engagement. Environ Commun J Nat Cult 4:82–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capstick SB, Demski CC, Sposato RG, et al (2015) Public perceptions of climate change in Britain following the winter 2013/2014 flooding. Understanding Risk Research Group Working Paper 15-01: Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole SJ (2010) Baudrillard’s ontology: empirical research and the denial of the real. Int J Baudrillard Stud 7:2Google Scholar
  10. de Hoog N, Stroebe W, de Wit JBF (2005) The impact of fear appeals on processing and acceptance of action recommendations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foust CR, Murphy WOS (2009) Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environ Commun J Nat Cult 3:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamel J, Dufour S, Fortin D (1993) Case study methods. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harden BG (2011) Nihilism and cultural cohesion:(Re) considerations of Jean Baudrillard. Int J Baudrillard Stud 8:2Google Scholar
  14. Hulme M (2008) The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geogr J 174:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joffe H (2008) The power of visual material: persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes 55:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenney K, Scott LM (2003) A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In: Scott LM, Batra R (eds) Persuasive imagery: a consumer response perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, USA, pp 17–57Google Scholar
  19. Kurtz DV (1996) Hegemony and anthropology: Gramsci, exegeses, reinterpretations. Critique Anthropol 16:103–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ Commun J Nat Cult 4:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, et al (2015) Climate change in the American mind: March, 2015. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale Project on Climate Change CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  22. Leviston Z, Price J, Malkin S et al (2014) Fourth annual survey of Australian attitudes to climate change: Interim report. CSIRO, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Change 3:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loesberg J (1993) Bourdieu and the sociology of aesthetics. ELH 60:1033–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change 17:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKie D, Galloway C (2007) Climate change after denial: global reach, global responsibilities, and public relations. Public Relat Rev 33:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, Califorinia, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris E, Sayler S (2014) The pensive photograph as agent: what can non-illustrative images do to galvanize public support for climate change action? Image Polit Clim Change Visual Imaginations Documentations 55:299Google Scholar
  29. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisc Rev Clim Change 1:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicholson-Cole SA (2005) Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29:255–273CrossRefGoogle 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 30:355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ragin CC (2006) How to lure analytic social science out of the doldrums: some lessons from comparative research. Int Sociol 21:633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regniez G, Custead S (2011) The role and effectiveness of governmental and non-governmental communications in engaging the public with climate change. In: Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I (eds) Engaging the public with climate change. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 200–216Google Scholar
  34. Rose G (2011) Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. Sage Publications Limited, Thousand Oaks, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Schatzki TR (2003) A new societist social ontology. Philos Soc Sci 33:174–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 57:9Google Scholar
  37. Schirato T (1997) Between practice and structure: cultural literacy and Bourdieu’s notion of habitus. South Rev Commun Polit Cult 30:259–267Google Scholar
  38. Schirato T (1998) Commoditising communication skills. Aust J Commun 25:87–96Google Scholar
  39. Scott LM (1994) Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric. J Consum Res 21:252–273Google Scholar
  40. Scott LM, Batra R (2003) Persuasive imagery: a consumer response perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith NW, Joffe H (2009) Climate change in the British press: the role of the visual. J Risk Res 12:647–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snelders D, Mugge R, Huinink M (2014) Using social distinctions in taste for analysing design styles across product categories. Int J Des 8:23–34Google Scholar
  43. Thoyre A (2011) Social capital as a facilitator of pro-environmental actions in the USA: a preliminary examination of mechanisms. Local Environ 16:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tonkinwise C (2011) I ♥ Sustainability (because necessity no longer has agency). Des Philos Pap 2Google Scholar
  45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williamson J (1978) Decoding advertisements: ideology and meaning in advertising. Marion Boyars, London, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNSW Art & DesignPaddington, SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations