Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication: Is climate change still a distant problem on YouTube?

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 22. Leiserowitz A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change. 2006;77(1–2):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 23. Olesen T. Greta Thunberg’s iconicity: Performance and co-performance in the social media ecology. New Media Soc. 2020;24(6):1325–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820975416 24. Maes A. The visual divide. Nat Clim Change. 2017;7(4):231–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3251 25. O’Neill SJ, Smith N. Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Clim Change. 2013;5(1):73–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249 26. O’Neill SJ. Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum. 2013;49:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.030 27. Doyle J. Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Sci Cult. 2007;16(2):129–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938 28. Hansen A, Machin D. Visually branding the environment: Climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Stud. 2008;10(6):777–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608098200 29. Born D. Bearing witness? Polar Bears as icons for climate change communication in national geographic. Environ Commun. 2018;13(5):649–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1435557 30. León B, Erviti MC. Science in pictures: Visual representation of climate change in Spain’s television news. Publ Underst Sci. 2015;24(2):183–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513500196 PMID: 24013276

31. O’Neill S. More than meets the eye: A longitudinal analysis of climate change imagery in the print media. Clim Change. 2019;163(1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02504-8 32. Smith NW, Joffe H. Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12(5):647–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802586512 33. Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton TA, Pidgeon NF. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change. 2015;5(12):1031–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760 34. Hart PS, Feldman L. The impact of climate change-related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Sci Commun. 2016;38(4):415–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357 35. McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. J Environ Psychol. 2015;44:109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 36. Duan R, Takahashi B, Zwickle A. Abstract or concrete? The effect of climate change images on people’s estimation of egocentric psychological distance. Publ Underst Sci. 2019;28(7):828–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865982 PMID: 31359830 37. Metag J, Schäfer MS, Füchslin T, Barsuhn T, Kleinen-von Königslöw K. Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Sci Commun. 2016;38(2):197–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181 38. O’Neill SJ, Hulme M. An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environ Change.

2009;19(4):402–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004 39. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M, Niemeyer S, Day SA. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environ Change. 2013;23(2):413–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 40. Chapman DA, Corner A, Webster R, Markowitz EM. Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environ Change. 2016;41:172–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.003 41. Petheram L, Stacey N, Fleming A. Future sea changes: Indigenous women’s preferences for adaptation to climate change on South Goulburn Island, Northern Territory (Australia). Clim Dev. 2014;7(4):339–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.951019 42. Degeling D, Koolen R. Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: On the positive impact of locality framing. Environ Commun. 2021;16(2):243–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1998177 43. Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ. The structural virality of online diffusion. Manage Sci. 2016;62(1):180–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2158 44. Hautea S, Parks P, Takahashi B, Zeng J. Showing They Care (Or Don’t): Affective publics and ambivalent climate activism on TikTok. Soc Media + Soc. 2021;7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211012344 45. Cho J, Ahmed S, Hilbert M, Liu B, Luu J. Do search algorithms endanger democracy? An experimental investigation of algorithm effects on political polarization. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2020;64(2):150–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365

46. Spartz JT, Su LY-F, Griffin R, Brossard D, Dunwoody S. YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environ Commun. 2015;11(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 21/ 23