Visual art inspired by climate change—An analysis of audience reactions to 37 artworks presented during 21st UN climate summit in Paris

"support for climate policy" was ordered-categorical, we report the three thresholds in the table. The outcome variable was linked in the regression through a probit link. B = unstandardized loading; SE = standard error; Beta = standardized loading; p = significance level. (DOCX) Acknowledgments We thank the other project partners Janet Swim (Penn State University), Paul Stern (Social and Environmental Research Institute, Northampton), Sam Jury (University of Hertfordshire), David Buckland (Cape Farewell), Martina Zienert & Joachim Borner (KMGNE), Edgar Hert- wich (Yale University), Peter Huybers (Harvard University), Laura Coleman (ONCA gallery Brighton), and Liselotte Roosen (NTNU) for their valuable input to the project and comments on earlier versions of this paper. Janet Swim and Paul Stern were particularly involved in dis- cussions around this paper. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Data curation: Laura K. Sommer. Formal analysis: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner, Laura K. Sommer. Funding acquisition: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Investigation: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner, Laura K. Sommer. Methodology: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Project administration: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner, Laura K. Sommer. Resources: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Validation: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Visualization: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Writing – original draft: Christian Andreas Klo¨ckner. Writing – review & editing: Laura K. Sommer. References 1. Dunaway F. Seeing Global Warming: Contemporary Art and the Fate of the Planet. Environmental His-

tory. 2009; 14(1):9–31. 2. Buckland D. Climate is culture. In: ISSC and UNESCO, editor. World Social Science Report—Changing Global Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing; 2013. p. 365–7. 3. Nurmis J. Visual climate change art 2005–2015: discourse and practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2016. 4. Roosen LJ, Klo¨ ckner CA, Swim JK. Visual art as a way to communicate climate change: a psychological perspective on climate change–related art. World Art. 2017:1–26. 5. Klo¨ckner CA. The psychology of pro-environmental communication–going beyond standard information strategies. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 6. Weber EU. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change. 2006; 77(1–2):103–20. 7. Marks M, Chandler L, Baldwin C. Re-imagining the environment: using an environmental art festival to encourage pro-environmental behaviour and a sense of place. Local Environment. 2016; 21(3):310–29. PLOS ONE Visual art inspired by climate change — An analysis of audience reactions PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247331 February 19, 2021 15 / 18

8. Arce-Nazario JA. Translating land-use science to a museum exhibit. Journal of land use science. 2016; 11(4):417–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2016.1172129 PMID: 28191029 9. Chandler L, Baldwin C. Views from the Water’s Edge: The Impact of Images in Communicating Per- spectives of Climate Change. Mapping minds: Brill; 2010. p. 95–106. 10. Curtis DJ, Reid N, Ballard G. Communicating ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecology and Society. 2012; 17(2). 11. Grant B, Baldwin C, Lieske SN, Martin K. Using participatory visual methods for information exchange about climate risk in canal estate communities. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs. 2015; 7 (1):23–37. 12. Preminger S. Transformative art: art as means for long-term neurocognitive change. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2012; 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00096 PMID: 22536178 13. Pelowski M, Markey PS, Lauring JO, Leder H. Visualizing the impact of art: an update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2016; 10. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160 PMID: 27199697 14. Chatterjee A. Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts. 2004; 4(2):56–60. 15. Leder H, Nadal M. Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: the aes- thetic episode–developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology. 2014; 105(4):443–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084 PMID: 25280118

16. Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A, Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology. 2004; 95(4):489–508. 17. Pelowski M, Akiba F. A model of art perception, evaluation and emotion in transformative aesthetic experience. New Ideas in Psychology. 2011; 29(2):80–97. 18. Silvia PJ. Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of general psychology. 2005; 9(4):342. 19. Silvia PJ. Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emo- tions. Empirical studies of the arts. 2005; 23(2):119–33. 20. Locher PJ, Overbeeke K, Wensveen S. Aesthetic interaction: A framework. Design Issues. 2010; 26 (2):70–9. 21. van Paasschen J, Bacci F, Melcher DP. The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and pref- erence ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS One. 2015; 10(8):e0134241. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134241 PMID: 26244368 22. Leder H, Gerger G, Dressler SG, Schabmann A. How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Cre- ativity, and the Arts. 2012; 6(1):2. 23. Leder H, Gerger G, Brieber D, Schwarz N. What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion. 2014; 28(6):1137–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013. 870132 PMID: 24383619 24. Buttel FH. Age and environmental concern: a multivariate analysis. Youth & Society. 1979; 10(3):237– 56. 25. Jones RE, Dunlap RE. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? 1.

33. Wertheimer M. A brief introduction to gestalt, identifying key theories and principles. Psychol Forsch. 1923; 4:301–50. 34. Doyle J. Mediating climate change. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing; 2011. 35. Leder H. Next steps in neuroaesthetics: Which processes and processing stages to study? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2013; 7(1):27. 36. Chatterjee A. Disembodying cognition. Language and cognition. 2010; 2(1):79–116. https://doi.org/10. 1515/LANGCOG.2010.004 PMID: 20802833 37. Chatterjee A. Neuroaesthetics: a coming of age story. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2011; 23 (1):53–62. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21457 PMID: 20175677 38. Tinio PP. From artistic creation to aesthetic reception: The mirror model of art. Psychology of Aesthet- ics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2013; 7(3):265. 39. Zaidel DW, Nadal M, Flexas A, Munar E. An evolutionary approach to art and aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2013; 7(1):100. 40. Pfister H-R, Bo¨ hm G. The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision mak- ing. Judgment and decision making. 2008; 3(1):5. 41. Swim JK, Bloodhart B. Portraying the perils to polar bears: The role of empathic and objective perspec- tive-taking toward animals in climate change communication. Environmental Communication. 2015; 9 (4):446–68. 42. Rees JH, Klug S, Bamberg S. Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Climatic change. 2015; 130(3):439–52.

43. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. "Fear won’t do it" promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication. 2009; 30(3):355–79. 44. Silvia PJ, Brown EM. Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2007; 1(2):100. 45. Silvia PJ. Looking past pleasure: anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2009; 3(1):48. 46. Locher PJ. The aesthetic experience with visual art "at first glance". Investigations Into the Phenome- nology and the Ontology of the Work of Art: Springer, Cham; 2015. p. 75–88. 47. White AE, Kaufman JC, Riggs M. How "outsider" do we like our art?: Influence of artist background on perceptions of warmth, creativity, and likeability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2014; 8(2):144. 48. Nodine C, Mello-Thoms C, Krupinski E, Locher P. Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial vision. 2008; 21(1–2):55–77. 49. Lengieza ML, Hunt CA, Swim JK. Measuring eudaimonic travel experiences. Annals of Tourism Research. 2019; 74(C):195–7. 50. Bamberg S, Schmidt P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and behavior. 2003; 35(2):264–85. 51. Stern PC. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behav-

ior. Journal of social issues. 2000; 56(3):407–24. 52. De Groot JI, Steg L. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the Norm Activation Model. The Journal of social psychology. 2009; 149(4):425–49. https://doi.org/ 10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449 PMID: 19702104 53. Curtis DJ, Reid N, Reeve I. Towards ecological sustainability: Observations on the role of the arts. SAPI EN S Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society. 2014;(7.1). 54. Muthe´n L, Muthe´n B. Mplus user’s guide, 8th edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthe´ n & Muthe´n. 1998– 2019. 55. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global environmental change. 2007; 17(3–4):445– 59. 56. Moser SC. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2016; 7(3):345–69. 57. Gabrys J, Yusoff K. Arts, sciences and climate change: practices and politics at the threshold. Science as culture. 2012; 21(1):1–24. 58. Jacobs R, Benford S, Selby M, Golembewski M, Price D, Giannachi G, editors. A conversation between trees: what data feels like in the forest. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470663 PMID: 24634895 PLOS ONE Visual art inspired by climate change — An analysis of audience reactions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247331 February 19, 2021 17 / 18

59. Leiserowitz A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic change. 2006; 77(1–2):45–72. 60. Capo MA, Cela-Conde CJ, Munar E, Rossello J, Nadal M. Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spatial vision. 2008; 21(3–5):379–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 156856808784532653 PMID: 18534110 PLOS ONE Visual art inspired by climate change — An analysis of audience reactions PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247331 February 19, 2021 18 / 18