Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Internet image search outputs propagate climate change sentiment and impact policy support

Nature Climate Change volume 15, pages 44–50 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 18 November 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

A critical step in tackling climate change involves structural, system-level changes facilitating action. Despite their ubiquity, little is known about how internet search algorithms portray climate change, and how these portrayals impact concern and action. In a sample of 49 countries, we found that nationwide climate concern, but not nation-level climate impact, predicted the emotional arousal caused by climate change Google Image Search outputs, as rated by a naive sample (n = 383). In a follow-up experiment we randomly assigned another sample (n = 899) to receive the climate change image outputs resulting from searches conducted in countries high or low in pre-existing climate concern, and found that participants exposed to images from countries with high pre-existing concern (compared to low) became more concerned about climate change, supportive of climate policy and likely to act pro-environmentally, suggesting a cycle of climate sentiment propagation systemically facilitated by internet search algorithms. We discuss the implications of these findings for climate action interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Study 1 procedural and analytic flow in four stages.
Fig. 2: The link between subjective climate change concern and emotionality of climate change outputs from Google Image Search.
Fig. 3: The links between subjective climate change concern, climate action support and emotionality of climate change outputs from Google Image Search.
Fig. 4: Example stimuli used in study 2.
Fig. 5: Language used by participants during the free response phase after exposure to climate change internet search outputs.
Fig. 6: Effects of image condition (high concern versus low concern) on climate-change-relevant outcomes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Raw datasets from the current work are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12701437 (ref. 81). Study 1 was not preregistered. The preregistration for study 2 can be accessed on AsPredicted: aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=5XT_1KT.

Code availability

Analysis scripts (in R) used in the current work are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12701437 (ref. 81).

Change history

References

  1. Yeganeh, A. J., McCoy, A. P. & Schenk, T. Determinants of climate change policy adoption: a meta-analysis. Urban Clim. 31, 100547 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Böhler, H., Hanegraaff, M. & Schulze, K. Does climate advocacy matter? The importance of competing interest groups for national climate policies. Clim. Policy 22, 961–975 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gifford, R., Kormos, C. & McIntyre, A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Clim. Change 2, 801–827 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  4. van der Linden, S. & Weber, E. U. Editorial overview: can behavioral science solve the climate crisis. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, iii–viii (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Drews, S. & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy 16, 855–876 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fairbrother, M. Public opinion about climate policies: a review and call for more studies of what people want. PLoS Clim. 1, e0000030 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vlasceanu, M. et al. Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Sci. Adv. 10, eadj5778 (2024).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergquist, M., Thiel, M., Goldberg, M. H. & van der Linden, S. Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: a second-order meta-analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2214851120 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Madumere, N. Public enlightenment and participation—a major contribution in mitigating climate change. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6, 9–15 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mavrodieva, A. V., Rachman, O. K., Harahap, V. B. & Shaw, R. Role of social media as a soft power tool in raising public awareness and engagement in addressing climate change. Climate 7, 122 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kastner, I. & Stern, P. C. Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 72–89 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lange, F. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav. Res. Methods 55, 600–622 (2023).

  13. Shuman, E., Saguy, T., van Zomeren, M. & Halperin, E. Disrupting the system constructively: testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 121, 819 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dubey, R., Hardy, M. D., Griffiths, T. L. & Bhui, R. AI-generated visuals of car-free us cities help improve support for sustainable policies. Nat. Sustain. 7, 399–403 (2024).

  15. Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2025764118 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bhowmik, A. K., McCaffrey, M. S., Ruskey, A. M., Frischmann, C. & Gaffney, O. Powers of 10: seeking ‘sweet spots’ for rapid climate and sustainability actions between individual and global scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094011 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chater, N. & Loewenstein, G. The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 46, e147 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sheldric, M. From Ideas to Impact: A Playbook for Influencing and Implementing Change in a Divided World (Wiley, 2024).

  19. Eskander, S. M. S. U. & Fankhauser, S. Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 750–756 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jorgenson, S. N., Stephens, J. C. & White, B. Environmental education in transition: a critical review of recent research on climate change and energy education. J. Environ. Educ. 50, 160–171 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Galeote, D. F. & Hamari, J. Game-based climate change engagement: analyzing the potential of entertainment and serious games. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 226 (2021).

  22. Giaccardi, S., Rogers, A. & Rosenthal, E.L. A Glaring Absence: The Climate Crisis is Virtually Nonexistent in Scripted Entertainment (Good Energy, 2022); https://learcenter.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/GlaringAbsence_NormanLearCenter.pdf

  23. Katzenbach, C. & Ulbricht, L. Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Rev. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424 (2019).

  24. Diehl, T., Huber, B., de Zúñiga, H. G. & Liu, J. Social media and beliefs about climate change: a cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 33, 197–213 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Berkebile-Weinberg, M., Goldwert, D., Doell, K. C., Van Bavel, J. J. & Vlasceanu, M. The differential impact of climate interventions along the political divide in 60 countries. Nat. Commun. 15, 3885 (2024).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cook, J. Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change (ed. Information Management Association) 1633–1658 (IGI Global, 2022); https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3686-8.ch081

  27. Google—Statistics and Facts. Statistica www.statista.com/topics/1001/google/#topicOverview (accessed 10 December 2022).

  28. Simpson, T. W. in Philosophical Engineering (eds Halpin, H. & Monnin, A.) 97–115 (Wiley, 2013).

  29. Noble, S. U. Algorithms of Oppression (New York Univ. Press, 2018).

  30. Lynch, M. P. The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data (WW Norton & Company, 2016).

  31. Azzopardi, L. (2021, March). Cognitive biases in search: a review and reflection of cognitive biases in information retrieval. In Proc. 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval 27–37 (2021).

  32. Meppelink, C. S., Smit, E. G., Fransen, M. L. & Diviani, N. ‘I was right about vaccination’: confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. J. Health Commun. 24, 129–140 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Crawford, K. The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence (Yale Univ. Press, 2021).

  36. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C. & Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 447–453 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Vlasceanu, M. & Amodio, D. M. Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2204529119 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cahill, L., Prins, B., Weber, M. & McGaugh, J. L. β-adrenergic activation and memory for emotional events. Nature 371, 702–704 (1994).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Shi, Z., Wang, A.-L., Emery, L. F., Sheerin, K. M. & Romer, D. The importance of relevant emotional arousal in the efficacy of pictorial health warnings for cigarettes. Nicotine Tob. Res. 19, 750–755 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vlasceanu, M., Morais, M. J., Duker, A. & Coman, A. The synchronization of collective beliefs: from dyadic interactions to network convergence. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 26, 453 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Young, C., Gillespie, B. & Otto, C. The impact of rational, emotional, and physiological advertising images on purchase intention: how TV ads influence brand memory. J. Advert. Res. 59, 329–341 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. O’neill, S. J. Image matters: climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum 49, 10–19 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  43. O’Neill, S. More than meets the eye: a longitudinal analysis of climate change imagery in the print media. Clim. Change 163, 9–26 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pearce, W. & De Gaetano, C. Google images, climate change, and the disappearance of humans. Diseña 19, 3, 2021.

  45. Leiserowitz, A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim. Change 77, 45–72 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Feldman, L. & Hart, P. S. Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal. 38, 585–602 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N. & Dawson, E. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 818–837 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Metag, J. in Research Handbook on Communicating Climate Change (eds Holmes, D. C. & Richardson, L. M.) 153–160 (Elgar, 2020).

  49. Davidson, D. J. & Kecinski, M. Emotional pathways to climate change responses. WIREs Clim. Change 13, e751 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schneider, C. R., Zaval, L. & Markowitz, E. M. Positive emotions and climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 114–120 (2021).

  51. Sharpe, E. J., Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. Pro-environmental behaviour and support for environmental policy as expressions of pro-environmental motivation. J. Environ. Psychol. 76, 101650 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S. & Pennebaker, J. W. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 (Univ. Texas, 2022); www.liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC-22%20Manual%20-%20Development%20and%20Psychometrics.pdf

  53. Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J. & Sherman, D. K. Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 492–507 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Guilbeault, D., Becker, J. & Centola, D. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9714–9719 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kadiresan, A., Baweja, Y. & Ogbanufe, O. in Bridging Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence (eds Albert, M. V. et al.) 275–285 (Springer, 2022).

  56. Lee, M. K. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data Soc. 5, 2053951718756684 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Metaxa, D., Gan, M. A., Goh, S., Hancock, J. & Landay, J. A. An image of society: gender and racial representation and impact in image search results for occupations. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 26 (2021).

  58. Kay, M., Matuszek, C. & Munson, S. A. Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems 3819–3828 (ACM, 2015).

  59. Wallace-Wells, D. et al. The uninhabitable earth. New York Magazine https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html (2017).

  60. Chapman, D. A., Lickel, B. & Markowitz, E. M. Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 850–852 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Keane, M. T., O’Brien, M. & Smyth, B. Are people biased in their use of search engines? Commun. ACM 51, 49–52 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sundin, O. & Carlsson, H. Outsourcing trust to the information infrastructure in schools: how search engines order knowledge in education practices. J. Doc. 72, 990–1007 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Trielli, D. & Diakopoulos, N. Search as news curator: the role of google in shaping attention to news information. In Proc 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–15 (ACM, 2019).

  64. Dhanani, A. Using search engines in the teaching and learning process. Int. J. Soc. Sci. 6, 682–689 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Carroll, N. In search we trust: exploring how search engines are shaping society. Int. J. Knowl. Soc. Res. 5, 12–27 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hampton, R. S., Kwon, J. Y. & Varnum, M. E. W. Variations in the regulation of affective neural responses across three cultures. Emotion 21, 283 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not weird. Nature 466, 29 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Wagner, J. A. & Moch, M. K. Individualism–collectivism: concept and measure. Group Organ. Stud. 11, 280–304 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Uz, I. The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 46, 319–335 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Goldwert, D., Bao, Y. E., Doell, K. C., Van Bavel, J. J. & Vlasceanu, M. The effects of climate action interventions along cultural individualism–collectivism. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cv3n4 (2024).

  71. Fisher Liu, B., Jin, Y. & Austin, L. L. The tendency to tell: understanding publics’ communicative responses to crisis information form and source. J. Public Relat. Res. 25, 51–67 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vlasceanu, M., Dyckovsky, A. M. & Coman, A. A network approach to investigate the dynamics of individual and collective beliefs: advances and applications of the bending model. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19, 444–453 (2024).

  73. Vlasceanu, M. & Coman, A. Mnemonic accessibility affects statement believability: the effect of listening to others selectively practicing beliefs. Cognition 180, 238–245 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Jagers, S. C. et al. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 49, 1282–1296 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Goldwert, D., Doell, K., Van Bavel, J. J. & Vlasceanu, M. Climate change terminology does not influence willingness to take climate action. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/835yt (2024).

  76. Search Engine Market Share Worldwide. StatCounter https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share (accessed 8 December 2022).

  77. Zhang, Z. & Yuan, K.-H. Practical Statistical Power Analysis Using WebPower and R (ISDSA, 2018).

  78. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y. & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., De Sherbinin, A. & Wendling, Z. A. Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 2022).

  80. Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L. & Winges, M. Global Climate Risk Index 2020 (Germanwatch, 2019).

  81. Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Gao, R., Tang, R. & Vlasceanu, M. Internet image search outputs propagate climate change sentiment and impact policy support. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12701437 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the New York University Research Catalyst Prize awarded to M.V.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Berkebile-Weinberg

  2. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Berkebile-Weinberg, Runji Gao, Rachel Tang & Madalina Vlasceanu

  3. Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Madalina Vlasceanu

Authors
  1. Michael Berkebile-Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Runji Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Madalina Vlasceanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B.-W. designed and executed studies, analysed data, created figures and wrote the manuscript. R.G. analysed data and reviewed the manuscript. R.T. created materials and reviewed the manuscript. M.V. conceived and designed studies, analysed data, created figures and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michael Berkebile-Weinberg or Madalina Vlasceanu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks David Markowitz, Md. Siddikur Rahman and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and Tables 1–8.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berkebile-Weinberg, M., Gao, R., Tang, R. et al. Internet image search outputs propagate climate change sentiment and impact policy support. Nat. Clim. Chang. 15, 44–50 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02178-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02178-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing