‘Going the distance’? The effects of a new method of proximizing climate change on perceived distance, risk perception, emotional response, and engagement in climate change mitigation

Abstract

Proximizing climate change’ is a widely used strategy for promoting public engagement in environmental communication. However, experimental manipulations of psychological distance often fail to substantially reduce the perceived distance of climate change, and, do not systematically affect responses to this issue. In this study, we test the effectiveness of a new proximizing method that combines two strategies on a sample of French students (N = 349). First, we communicated about the immediate (vs. distant) consequences of climate change. Then, participants were asked to relate these consequences to their own direct experiences to accentuate the level of distance induced (versus a no-accentuation condition). We found that presenting proximal events reduces the perceived distance of climate change, but only when proximity is accentuated. This combined method also leads to greater risk perception, stronger emotional response, and increased engagement in mitigation, as it influences the perceived distance. Our results suggest that proximizing climate change is a valuable communication strategy in environmental campaigns when psychological closeness to climate change is made relevant to individuals’ personal experience.

Full text

Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad8f96
PAPER
‘Going the distance’? The effects of a new method of proximizing
climate change on perceived distance, risk perception, emotional
response, and engagement in climate change mitigation
C Langlais
1
, M Mauduy
2
, C Demarque
3
, O Cantat
4
and C Sénémeaud
1
1
Université de Caen Normandie, LPCN (UR 7452), France
2
Université Paris Cité, LPS (UR 4471), France
3
Aix Marseille Univ, LPS (UR 849), Aix-en-Provence, France
4
Université de Caen Normandie, IDEES (UMR 6266), France
E-mail: camille.langlais@unicaen.fr
Keywords: psychological distance, climate change, risk perception, emotional reactivity, mitigation policy support, intention to mitigate
climate change
Supplementary material for this article is available online
Abstract
‘Proximizing climate change’is a widely used strategy for promoting public engagement in environmental
communication. However, experimental manipulations of psychological distance often fail to substantially
reduce the perceived distance of climate change, and, do not systematically affect responses to this issue. In
this study, we test the effectiveness of a new proximizing method that combines two strategies on a sample
of French students (N=349). First, we communicated about the immediate (vs. distant)consequences of
climate change. Then, participants were asked to relate these consequences to their own direct experiences
to accentuate the level of distance induced (versus a no-accentuation condition). We found that presenting
proximal events reduces the perceived distance of climate change, but only when proximity is accentuated.
This combined method also leads to greater risk perception, stronger emotional response, and increased
engagement in mitigation, as it influences the perceived distance. Our results suggest that proximizing
climate change is a valuable communication strategy in environmental campaigns when psychological
closeness to climate change is made relevant to individuals’personal experience.
1. Introduction
Climate experts alert that ‘climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extreme in every region
across the globe’(IPCC 2023,p.5)and recommend that communicators ‘bring climate change [K]to the present,
to a local scene and to a similar social setting’(Council of Europe 2016,p. 14)to make this issue more personal,
immediate, and certain. This strategy is know nas ‘proximizing climate change’(Brügger et al 2016)and has been
extensively studied in psychology over the last decade through the concept of psychological distance (Liberman and
Trope 1998,TropeandLiberman2010, see also Simandan 2016,2020, for a discussion of this framework in human
geography). In line with the recommendations of climate experts, researchers expected that psychological distance
from climate change would be a major barrier to action, and that proximizing climate-related events (Brügger et al
2016)would enhance public engagement on the issue (Milfont 2010). However, empirical studies have failed to yield
clear evidence of the effect of psychological distance on people’s responses to climate change (see Keller et al 2022 or
van Valkengoed et al 2023 for a systematic review). The present article aims to shed light on these complex results by
proposing a new method to reduce the perceived distance of climatechange and examine its influence on risk
perception, emotional reactivity, a s well as support and intention for mitigation.
1.1. Psychological distance and climate change
Starting in the 1990s, psychologists have explored the characteristics of climate change and their relationships to
risk perception and management (Gifford 2008, Milfont 2010, Pawlik 1991). They emphasized that climate
OPEN ACCESS
RECEIVED
21 June 2024
REVISED
20 September 2024
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
6 November 2024
PUBLISHED
18 November 2024
Original content from this
work may be used under
the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0
licence.
Any further distribution of
this work must maintain
attribution to the
author(s)and the title of
the work, journal citation
and DOI.
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

change, as a global risk, requires people to transcend their immediate experience by considering other time,
other places, other people, as well as different scenarios. In this context, the concept of psychological distance,
developed within the framework of Construal Level Theory (Liberman and Trope 1998, Trope and
Liberman 2010), has been particularly investigated. Psychological distance is defined as ‘a subjective experience
that something is close or far away from the self, here and now’(Trope and Liberman 2010, p. 440)and
encompasses four interdependent dimensions: temporal distance (now versus in a distant future), spatial
distance (here versus in a remote place), social distance (me versus unfamiliar or different people), and hypothetical
distance (certain versus uncertain). According to Milfont (2010), climate change is perceived as distant from
people’s immediate reality across these four dimensions, which would interact to create an overall sense of
distance from the issue. This notion is supported by qualitative studies, which confirm that both scientific
(Michel-Guillou 2015, Poortvliet et al 2020)and lay discourses (de Guttry et al 2017, de Guttry et al 2019, Lee and
Barnett 2020)primarily focus on the severe consequences occurring in distant territories and uncertain futures.
Consequently, psychological distance has been identified as one of the most significant human barriers to
climate change mitigation by both researchers in psychology and policymakers (e.g., Van Der Linden et al 2015,
Van Lange and Huckelba 2021, Wang et al 2021).
Researchers have tested this hypothesis over the past 15 years, exploring whether psychological distance to
climate change would reduce the cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to climate change (e.g., Spence
et al 2012, Brügger et al 2016, Rickard et al 2016, Jones et al 2017, Singh et al 2017, Schuldt et al 2018, Azadi et al
2019, Chu and Yang 2019, Wang et al 2019, Loy and Spence 2020). In one of the first and most influential studies
in the field, Spence et al (2012)explored the relationship between the psychological distance to climate change,
concerns about climate change, and preparedness to reduce energy use. They found that high psychological
distance was associated with lower sustainable behavior intentions due to lower concerns about climate change.
Subsequently, other studies have tended to corroborate a negative association between the psychological
distance of climate change and intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, while further exploring its
connection with variables related to risk perception and emotional reactivity (Carmi and Kimhi 2015, Sacchi
et al 2016, Singh et al 2017). Despite these initial consistent findings, the many attempts to experimentally reduce
the psychological distance of climate change to foster engagement in the issue have produced more mixed results
(e.g., significant effects: Hart and Nisbet 2012, Scannell and Gifford 2013, no significant effect: Brügger et al
2016, Jones et al 2017, Schuldt et al 2018, Kim and Ahn 2019). For example, Jones et al (2017)found that
experimentally increasing the psychological closeness to climate change led to increased concerns and intentions
related to climate change. In contrast, in two studies, Brügger et al (2016)showed no significant impact of
distance framing on support and intentions for mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
To explain the inconsistent effects of experimental manipulations on responses to climate change,
researchers have first questioned the fundamental assumption that proximity to climate change has a direct and
systematic influence on decisions and actions (Brügger et al 2015, McDonald et al 2015). Brügger et al (2015)
initially proposed that the psychological distance of climate change would rather influence the attention paid to
high-level (i.e., abstract)or low-level (i.e., concrete)information, prompting many researchers to explore this
strategy in relation to other variables (e.g., Brügger et al 2016, Sacchi et al 2016, Chu 2022). Subsequently,
researchers have also questioned the applicability of psychological distance theoretical framework
(multidimensional, transientK)to understand climate change perception and have therefore proposed
approaching distance to climate change through other related concepts (e.g., temporal discounting or self-
transcendence in Keller et al 2022)or turning to alternative theories (see Brügger 2020 for a discussion of
alternative frameworks). Finally, van Valkengoed et al (2023)have suggested shifting focus away from distance-
related aspects in climate change perception and exploring other key concepts. These theoretical considerations
offer a stimulating debate on psychological distance and its effects on responses to climate change. However,
before making any decisions about rejecting the initial assumptions of the effect of proximizing climate change,
we believe that it is crucial to address significant methodological limitations, particularly concerning the lack of
clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of proximizing climate change in altering the perceived distance from
it (Keller et al 2022, Langlais et al 2022).
Three major issues arise in this field when assessing the effectiveness of manipulating psychological distance
on perceived distance from climate change. First, a significant number of studies do not include any
manipulation-checks (e.g., Chu and Yang 2018, Scannell and Gifford 2013), which provide no indication of the
effectiveness of the procedures used in these studies. Second, others only measure the perceived distance of
climate change on the specific dimensions manipulated in their experimental design (e.g., Chu and Yang 2019,
Loy and Spence 2020), hindering an assessment of the manipulations’ability to alter psychological distance as a
multidimensional concept in which temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical distances are closely related.
Third, a similar number of studies assess perceived distance in relation to the specific context in which the risk is
framed (e.g., Rickard et al 2016, Schuldt et al 2018). For instance, Schuldt et al (2018)measured the perceived
spatial distance from the Maldives, which was presented as a vulnerable territory to climate change in their study.
2
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

However, measuring psychological distance within a specific context does not yield insights into the
effectiveness of the proximizing method in influencing psychological distance from climate change, a
phenomenon that is not limited to its impacts in the Maldives. Finally, among the few studies that incorporate a
suitable manipulation-check, we generally observe significant but modest and/or partial effects on the four
dimensions of the perceived distance to climate change (e.g., Ejelöv et al 2018, Jones et al 2017, Chu and
Yang 2020). Thus, the mixed results observed in the experimental studies could be explained by the failure of the
manipulations classically used to reduce psychological distance to climate change. As this methodological
explanation has largely been overlooked in favor of more theoretical explanations, it seems necessary to delve
deeper into the manipulation of psychological distance and its limitations in climate change research to develop
a new strategy to effectively proximize climate change before testing its effects on responses to climate change.
1.2. Two methods for proximizing climate change
Two methods have been concurrently employed to proximize climate change. The most commonly used
method for proximizing climate change involves communicating about proximal versus distant events to the
audience by manipulating the context in which climate change is described (e.g., Brügger et al 2016, Rickard et al
2016, Chu and Yang 2019, Jones et al 2017, Kim and Ahn 2019, Loy and Spence 2020,). For instance, Kim and
Ahn (2019)employed a temporal framing and proposed an environmental advertisement featuring a melting
ice-cream representing the Earth, followed by a brief text highlighting the anticipated temperature rise and
droughts in the upcoming summer versus at the end of the century. Loy and Spence (2020)focused on spatial
distance and presented a newspaper article portraying the range of climate change consequences in the UK
versus Bangladesh. In Jones et al’s study (2017), the researchers jointly manipulated the four dimensions of
psychological distance using a short documentary video describing extreme weather events related to climate
change, such as bushfires and typhoons. They varied the affected locations and victims, time delays, and the
perceived likelihood that these events were caused by climate change.
As illustrated in the previous examples, communicating about the close versus distant consequences of
climate change provides important ecological validity to the manipulation of psychological distance by
presenting real-world impacts through channels similar to mainstream media. However, this method faces two
main limitations. Firstly, its operationalization exhibits significant heterogeneity, particularly in terms of the
dimensions manipulated but also regarding the events portrayed (Keller et al 2022, Langlais et al 2022), which
vary in severity, scope (regional, national, or global), and nature (climatic disasters, health issues, economic
crisisK). As mentioned by Schuldt et al (2018), this limitation hinders the isolation of the effect of psychological
distance from the effects of other variables and makes it challenging to generalize the observed effects to other
climate-related events. Secondly, and more importantly, this method only informs the audience about the
objectively close consequences of climate change, which does not necessarily mean that these events are
perceived as subjectively close to their immediate environment. This second limitation may explain the modest
effects of this method in reducing the perceived distance of climate change at first glance. As argued by Trope and
Liberman (2010), psychological distance is not inherent to the properties of the object but depends on the
subjective feeling of distance from the self. Thus, to reduce the perceived distance of the immediate
consequences of climate change, we should guide participants to relate them to their direct experience. Relating
events to one’s personal experience is at the core of the second, less commonly used method of proximizing
climate change.
This second method of proximizing climate change does not vary the events presented (close or distant)but
focuses on altering perception of distance to the same distant event (Bashir et al 2014, Schuldt et al 2018, Soliman
et al 2018, Yang et al 2021). To this end, researchers have used experimental tasks designed to bring distant events
closer to people’s direct experiences. In two studies, a group of researchers developed a spatial task in which
participants were instructed to position the Maldives, an area affected by rising sea levels, relative to their
country, the United States (Schuldt et al 2018)or Singapore (Yang et al 2021), by drawing a line between these
two points on a map. The size of the map varied between the experimental conditions, resulting in a shorter
distance to travel between locations in the ‘close’condition compared to the ‘distant’condition. Similarly,
Soliman et al (2018)asked participants to position the year 2100 (i.e., a time that could be troubled by food
shortages caused by climate change)on a timeline relative to the present moment. In the ‘close’condition, the
timeline extended from ‘now’to a future farther away than the event, visually bringing the event closer to the
present compared to the ‘distant’condition where the timeline extended to a nearer future.
This second method, which manipulates the perception of distance by focusing on a single climatic event,
avoids many of the confounding variables induced by informing participants about the close versus distant
consequences of climate change (Schuldt et al 2018). However, this method has an important limitation: it
systematically aims to reduce the psychological distance from events that objectively lie beyond the participants’
direct experience. From our perspective, informing people about some distant consequences of climate change
3
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

does not seem optimal to proximize climate change, despite the experimental tasks designed to visually make
these consequences appear less distant. As evidence, Schuldt et al (2018)observed that their US participants
perceived the Maldives as highly distant regardless of the map used. This last point leads us to suggest that
manipulating solely the subjective distance from objectively distant events may not be sufficient to alter the
perceived distance either. To overcome the limitations of both the first and second methods, the present paper
proposes the development of a combined method that could proximize climate change by manipulating both
objective (communicating about the close versus distant consequences)and subjective (locating these close or
distant consequences in relation to ‘here’and ‘now’)distances from climate change.
2. The present research: testing the combined proximizing method
Researchers have concurrently employed two distinct methods to proximize climate change. However, we
argued that both methods do not fully mobilize the concept of psychological distance, thus limiting their
effectiveness in reducing the perceived distance to climate change and promoting responses to this issue. On the
one hand, informing people about objectively close events (as in Brügger et al 2016, Rickard et al 2016, Jones et al
2017, Chu and Yang, 2019, Kim and Ahn, 2019, Loy and Spence, 2020)may not systematically lead them to
subjectively perceive these events as close to their personal experience. On the other hand, studies attempting to
bridge the psychological distance from distant events (see Bashir et al 2014, Schuldt et al 2018, Soliman et al 2018,
Yang et al 2021)involve events that remain objectively far removed from one’s immediate experience, despite
the experimental visual cues provided. Therefore, a more effective approach to proximize climate change might
involve combining both objective and subjective manipulations by first presenting its close consequences and
then contextualizing them in relation to ‘here’and ‘now’. In the current study, we examined the effectiveness of
this combined method in modifying the perceived distance of climate change by emphasizing proximity (versus
distance)to close (versus distant)consequences of climate change and investigating its effect on risk perception,
emotional response, and engagement in climate change mitigation. Expanding the traditional method of
communicating about the close versus distant consequences of climate change by subsequently asking
participants to position these consequences in relation to ‘here’and ‘now’could enhance the impact of
proximizing climate change on perceived distance. Consequently, it could strengthen the effect of perceived
distance on climate responses. We first hypothesized that distance accentuation (accentuation versus non-
accentuation)would moderate the effect of distance manipulation (close versus distant)on perceived distance to
climate change (H1). More specifically, we expected that communicating about the close versus distant
consequences of climate change would result in a lower perceived distance of climate change in the close
condition, particularly when accentuating proximity (versus distance). Second, we hypothesized that climate
responses, namely risk perception (H2), emotional response (H3), and engagement in climate change mitigation
(H4), would be positively and indirectly influenced by our combined method through its impact on the
perceived distance of climate change (see figure 1for a summary of hypotheses).
3. Methods
3.1. Participants, design and procedure
A sample of 770 undergraduates from a French university was recruited through their institutional email addresses
to participate in a short online study on climate changewithout compensation. After applying pre-specified
inclusioncriteria, 349 participants (212 females, M
age
=23.2, SD =3.76)were included in the final analysis. All
participants voluntarily took part in the study and provided their consent before starting. The study protocol was
approved by the University’sData Protection Officer, which ensures that our data collection practices rigorously
comply with the protection of personal data for all study participants (U243_202205111-01R1). Besides, the
participants’anonymity was ensured by the University Information System Direction. The survey was conducted
in full accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2008)and the ethical standards established by the University’s
Psychology Department,which follows the AmericanPsychological Association EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists
and the Code ofConduct (APA, 2017)forthe ethical treatment of human participants. This study was
preregistered at https://osf.io/8a4s2/?view_only=6d74126f202f4e4691fe8fe270bd1c15. Additional information
regarding inclusion criteria, demographic characteristics, and statistical power can be found in Supplements 1.1,
1.2, and 1.3, respectively.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions in a 2 (distance
manipulation: close versus distant consequences)x2(distance accentuation: accentuation versus no
accentuation)between-participants design (see the randomization check in Supplement 2.1). This experimental
setup follows the standard methodological practices in social psychology, aimed at establishing causal
relationships by manipulating independent variables and observing their effects on dependent variables under
4
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

controlled conditions (see Aronson et al 1998). First, participants read a scientific report that presented either
spatially and temporally proximal or distal consequences of climate change
5
. In the close condition, a fictional
regional expert presented its impacts specifically in a local city by 2030. In the distant condition, a similar report
depicted similar consequences in a French overseas city located in the Indian Ocean, but projected for 2100.
These scientific reports were collaboratively developed using real data sourced from the ‘Drias, les futurs du
climat’website (http://www.drias-climat.fr/). This database provides climate projections for several
geographical areas, including mainland France and French Overseas Territories, across different time horizons,
encompassing climate trends over 30 years (i.e., in this study, the timeframe of 2030 referred to the period from
2020 to 2050, while the timeframe of 2100 corresponded to the period from 2070 to 2100). As temperature
change is projected to be more significant by the end of the century compared to the forecasted conditions in the
near future, we selected a nearby city that will be severely affected by temperature rise and, conversely, a city
further away that will be less impacted. To account for this bias, perceived severity was also measured following
perceived distance. The material is available in Supplement 1.4.
Next, participants in the accentuation condition were asked to locate the consequences depicted in the report
on both a spatial and temporal scale (adapted from Soliman et al 2018), to further accentuate the distance
manipulation. Participants had to locate the city mentioned in the report by moving a cursor on a scale ranging
from ‘0 kilometer’to ‘1,000 kilometers from here’(close condition)or ‘12,000 kilometers from here’(distant
condition). Subsequently, participants were instructed to position the year mentioned in the report by adjusting
a cursor on a scale ranging from ‘0 year’to ‘100 years from now’. On both scales, in the close condition, the
cursors should be placed near the origin, whereas in the distant condition, they should be placed far from the
origin (see figure 2). Participants in the no accentuation condition were not required to perform this task.
Subsequently, all participants completed the dependent variables, measures of message credibility, and
demographic questions. Finally, participants read a short debriefing and were thanked for their contribution.
3.2. Dependent measures
We measured the perceived distance between climate change and the participant’s current experience using four
items, which captured temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical perceptions of climate change (adapted from
Liberman and Förster 2009, and applied to climate change in Singh et al 2017). To examine the impact of
independent variables on the overall sense of distance, we assessed perceived distance using a composite score
that combined all four dimensions (for internal consistency, see table 1).
We also measured risk perception and emotional response related to climate change, as well as engagement
in mitigation. To assess risk perception, we initially evaluated perceived severity and vulnerability, following the
framework of the Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers 1975, adapted to climate change in Grothmann and
Patt 2005). We also evaluated personal involvement with its two components: risk valuation and identification
(adapted from Rouquette 1980, and applied to environmental risk in Demarque et al 2012). For measuring
emotional response, we assessed emotional intensity (i.e., the general level of emotional arousal and more discrete
emotions, Chu and Yang 2019), as well as emotional valence (Chu and Yang 2018). To measure engagement in
Figure 1. Research hypotheses.
5
We manipulated the psychological distance of climate change on the spatial and temporal dimensions, excluding the social and
hypothetical dimensions, which have been little studied through the first method of proximization and have never been studied using the
second one (see Guillard et al 2021, or Jones et al 2017 for exceptions).
5
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

Figure 2. Accentuationmanipulation of psychological distancein the close condition. Reproduced from Solimanet al (2018).CC BY 4.0.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and Pearson correlations of the dependent measures.
Variable Example kM(SD)α
1. Perceived distance When I think about climate change and its consequences, I think about
themK
4 1.69 (0.59).72
From 1 (now)to 5 (in the distant future)
2. Perceived severity Climate change seems to meK3 4.69 (0.55).95
From 1 (not very threatening)to 5 (very threatening)
3. Risk valuation I consider climate change to be a very important issue today. 3 4.79 (0.44).92
From 1 (totally disagree)to 5 (totally agree)
4. Risk identification I feel concerned about climate change. 3 4.54 (0.71).93
From 1 (totally disagree)to 5 (totally agree)
5. Perceived vulnerability When I think about climate change and its consequences, I feel vulnerable. 3 3.77 (0.72).62
From 1 (totally disagree)to 5 (totally agree)
6. Intensity of emotions At the present time, I have the impression thatK9 3.56 (0.67).87
1(I don’t experience any emotions)to 5 (I experience intense emotions)
When I think specifically about climate change now, I feelK
From 1 (Not at all anxious)to 5 (very anxious)
7. Valence of emotions In the present situation, I am feeling emotionsK3 2.51 (0.88).97
From 1 (Unpleasant)to 5 (Pleasant)
8. Policy support The following proposals are related to policies designed to mitigate the impact
of climate change. To what extent do you consider it desirable to implement
these policies in the near future?
12 3.97 (0.53).85
From 1 (not desirable at all)to 5 (very desirable)
e.g., ‘Further develop sources of renewable energy’
9. Personal intentions The following proposals relate to collective actions that can help mitigate the
impacts of climate change. To what extent do you feel ready to undertake
these actions in the near future?
16 4.04 (0.57).87
From 1 (not at all ready)to 5 (completely ready)
e.g., ‘Participate in a protest regarding the climate change issue’
The following proposals relate to personal actions you could undertake to help
mitigate the impacts of climate change. To what extent do you feel ready to
perform these actions right away?
From 1 (not at all ready)to 5 (completely ready)
e.g., ‘reducing your meat consumption’
N=349. Since the dependent measures were assessed using five-point type scales, we chose to assess their reliability using an ordinal
coefficient alpha instead of the traditional Cronbach alpha (Gadermann et al 2012).
6
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

mitigation, we initially assessed support for 12 mitigation policies. Additionally, we assessed personal intentions,
which included four collective and 12 individual actions
6
.
Details of each scale, along with descriptive data and internal consistency, are presented in table 1(all the
dependent measures are provided in Supplement 1.5). Correlations between variables can be found in
Supplement 2.2, and condition-specific descriptive data are available in Supplement 2.3.
3.3. Data analysis
We tested our first hypothesis in two steps by conducting a General Linear Model (Gallucci 2019)in Jamovi
2.3.12 (The jamovi project 2022)on the perceived distance of climate change. Firstly, we examined the omnibus
effects of our independent variables, namely the main effects of distance manipulation, distance accentuation,
and their interaction. Secondly, we used the contrast method to test our specific hypothesis more efficiently than
using omnibus tests (see Abdi and Williams 2010, Brauer and McClelland 2005, Judd et al 2017). We employed
polynomial contrasts (as shown in table 2)with the linear contrast as our contrast of interest because we expected
perceived distance to decrease from the accentuated distant condition, to the non-accentuated distant
condition, then the non-accentuated close condition, and finally to the accentuated close condition. To support
our hypothesis, the linear contrast needed to have a significant effect on perceived distance, while the residuals
needed to be non-significant (Brauer and McClelland 2005).
Then, we tested H2, H3, and H4 by conducting a mediation model within a structural equation model in R
(R Core Team 2021, with the lavaan package Rosseel 2012), addressing potential issues associated with
conducting separate mediation analyses, such as the risk of inflated Type I error rates, while also accounting for
the covariances between the dependent variables. This model included risk perception (four variables),
emotional response (two variables), and engagement in climate change mitigation (two variables)as outcomes,
with perceived distance as the mediator and the polynomial contrasts as predictors. To address the multivariate
non-normality of the data (indicated by a Kurtosis test >20, Mardia 1974, tested with the R package mvn)
(Korkmaz et al 2014)we used the maximum likelihood estimation with robust (Huber-White)standard errors
instead of standard maximum likelihood estimation. In line with Yzerbyt et al, recommendations, (2018),we
determined the presence of a mediation effect based on three criteria: the predictor’s effect on the mediator (a),
the mediator’s effect on the outcome (b), and the indirect effect (a
*
b)must be significant.
4. Results
4.1. Effect on perceived distance
Results indicated no main effects of distance manipulation, F(1,345)=2.87, p=.091, η
2
=.008, and distance
accentuation, F(1,345)=0.00, p=.946, η
2
=.000, on perceived distance of climate change. However, as
expected, there was a significant interaction between the two variables F(1,345)=4.39, p=.037, η
2
=.013 (see
figure 3). The simple effects analysis revealed no effect of the psychological distance manipulation in the non-
accentuation condition (β=0.04, p=.751)but a significant effect in the distance accentuation condition
(β=−0.42, p=.015)with participants perceiving climate change as closer to them in the close condition
(M=1.58, SD =0.61)than in the distant condition (M=1.83, SD =0.61). When examining the hypothesis
with polynomial contrasts, the results confirmed that the linear contrast was significant (Estimate =−0.16, 95%
CI [−0.30, −0.02],β=−0.27, p=.023), while the quadratic (Estimate =−0.00, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.12],
β=−0.01, p=.946)and cubic (Estimate =−0.07, 95% CI [−0.19, 0.04],β=−0.12, p=.224)contrasts were
not, indicating a significant and negative slope of perceived distance from the accentuated distant condition to
the accentuated close condition.
Table 2. Polynomial contrasts used to test the hypotheses.
Conditions Distant condition Close condition
Accentuation No accentuation No accentuation Accentuation
Linear contrast (C1)−3−113
Quadratic contrast (C2)1−1−11
Cubic contrast (C3)−13 −31
C1 is our contrast of interest. C2 and C3 are residual contrasts.
6
The policies and individual mitigation actions used in this study are based on the recommendations of the French Environment and Energy
Management Agency (ADEME 2022).
7
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

4.2. Effect on responses to climate change
First, the results of the mediation analysis indicated significant effects for the components, specifically the linear
contrast on perceived distance and perceived distance on all the outcome variables (see figure 4). Second, there
were significant indirect effects of the linear contrast on all outcome variables through the perceived distance of
climate change, while the quadratic and cubic contrasts did not show such effects (see Supplement 2.4 for direct
and indirect effects of contrasts on outcome variables). These findings are consistent with H2, H3, and H4,
suggesting that the combined method for proximizing climate change increases risk perception, emotional
response, and engagement in climate change mitigation by reducing the perceived distance of climate change.
5. Discussion
Many studies have attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of proximizing climate change as a strategy to
promote climate action. However, many have failed to substantially reduce the perceived distance from climate
risk (e.g., Brügger et al 2016, Jones et al 2017, Chu and Yang 2020), which may help to explain the lack of
significant results observed in perceptive, emotional, and behavioral responses to this issue. The present study
aimed to develop a combined method for proximizing climate change and test its effectiveness in altering the
perceived distance of climate change while fostering risk perception, emotional response, and engagement in
climate change mitigation. Our study yielded three major findings. Firstly, it appears to confirm the limitations
of the widely used method for proximizing climate change (i.e., communicating about the close versus distant
consequences)in altering individuals’perceived distance on its own: contrary to our expectations, we did not
observe significant differences between the close and the distant conditions when the psychological distance to
climate change was not accentuated. Secondly, in line with our first hypothesis, it demonstrates that a combined
method, involving accentuating perceived distance by asking participants to situate these close versus distant
events ‘here’and ‘now’, is more effective in changing individuals’perceived distance to climate change. Thirdly,
the combined proximizing climate change method has also led to greater risk perception, emotional response,
and engagement in climate change mitigation through its influence on perceived distance. Thus, our study
supports a positive effect of proximizing climate change on response to this issue (similar to results seen in Jones
et al 2017), once climate change has been sufficiently proximized. We propose to discuss these results by focusing
on two significant implications. The first concerns the contribution of our findings to a better understanding of
how people perceive the distance to climate change and whether it is worthwhile to proximize the climate-
related risk, in line with the Construal Level Theory principles. The second concerns the potential value of our
Figure 3. Perceived distance of climate change depending on distance and accentuation manipulation. Estimated marginal means are
displayed with their standard errors.
8
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

combined method in learning more about how the psychological distance of climate change affects risk
perception, emotional response, and engagement in climate change mitigation.
Over ten years ago, Milfont (2010)suggested that climate change, given its inherent characteristics
(complexity, invisibility, diffusion, etc), would inherently be perceived as distant and abstract. Since then, the
psychological distance applied to climate change has generally been considered as a stable individual belief,
challenging to modify through isolated strategies employed in experimental studies (Brügger 2020). This is one
of the explanations for the heterogeneity of results observed in this field. In this context, the effectiveness of our
combined method in proximizing climate raises two important considerations. First, our findings suggest that it
is possible to alter individuals’perceived distance from climate change by communicating about its immediate
consequences, as long as these consequences are related to the self. This support the idea that perceived distance
of climate change can vary based on its salience in individuals’immediate experience. Climate change could
alternatively be perceived as close or distant, depending on its visible, occasional manifestations (e.g., floods,
forest fires, heat waves)but also on the information to which people are exposed (media coverage, educationK)
in their daily lives. These findings align with the fundamental principles developed by Trope and Liberman
(2010), who consider psychological distance from objects as not immutable but as relatively transient.
Therefore, this contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the applicability of the construal-level framework in
gaining a better understanding of psychological distance related to climate change. Second, it is important to
note that, although the combined proximizing method significantly influences the perceived distance of climate
change, its effects are limited. Descriptively, participants perceived climate change as relatively close to them
across all conditions, even those who were asked to position distant consequences (i.e., 10,000 km away and at
Figure 4. Mediation model testing H2, H3, and H4 with polynomial contrasts as predictors, perceived distance as a mediator, and risk
perception (four variables), emotional response (two variables), and engagement in climate change mitigation (two variables)as
dependent variables. N =349. To address the multivariate non-normality of the data (indicated by a Kurtosis test >20, Mardia 1974;
tested with the R package mvn; Korkmaz et al 2014), we used the maximum likelihood estimation with robust (Huber-White)
standard errors instead of standard maximum likelihood estimation. Statistically significant at
***
p<.001;
**
p<.01;
*
p<.05.
9
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

the end of the century)in relation to their immediate experience. This is the second crucial point to emphasize
because it challenges the fundamental assumption that climate change is inherently perceived as distant. This
phenomenon can be explained by the recent context in which visible manifestations of climate change have
become more prevalent in many regions, including the immediate environment of our participants. This has
already been suggested by van Valkengoed et al (2023), who analyzed survey results from the past 20 years and
showed that people perceive climate change as closer in more recent years. From a construal level perspective, if
people can grasp climate change without transcending their immediate experience but instead by directly
observing the ‘here and now’, then they should perceive it as closer and more concrete than in the past. Given
these findings, we can question the relevance of further proximizing a risk that is already perceived to be close.
However, it is important to note that climate change remains only sporadically visible in people’s immediate
experience and, finally, is not consistently present in their day-to-day lives. Consequently, we believe that the
challenge of ‘proximizing climate change’today is perhaps to remind the audience of the urgency of climate
change in situations where it escapes their immediate experience in favor of other everyday issues.
Our results also demonstrate that the method we developed not only alters the perceived distance of climate
change but also has an indirect impact on emotional reactions, engagement in climate change mitigation, and,
most importantly, risk perception. Given that this combined method leads individuals to relate the
consequences of climate change to their own space-time, it is not surprising that it particularly influences how
individuals feel concerned (i.e., risk identification)and personally threatened (i.e., perceived vulnerability)
regarding climate change. It is as if the participants have established a direct link between themselves and the
climate risk. Following this line of reasoning, bringing climate change closer to the ‘here’and ‘now’should
trigger emotions associated with the immediate threat to the self (e.g., fear, anger). However, in this study, we
assessed the effects of the combined method on a global emotional response, blending these specific emotions
with more ‘self-conscious’ones (e.g., shame, guilt)that require distancing from oneself and are associated with
more long-term goals (Ejelöv et al 2018). Finally, if proximizing climate change leads to specific cognitive and
emotional responses to the induced personal threat, this strategy could also prompt individuals to take actions
primarily deemed effective in protecting their self-integrity. However, in this study, as in many others in the
field, the effect of psychological distance is tested on mitigation actions that offer a global response, not limited to
specific time and spatial contexts. These actions, whether adopted individually or collectively, could be perceived
as less relevant for defending oneself from the immediate climate risk compared to adaptation practices, which
were not assessed in our study but are more likely to yield immediate and personal benefits upon
implementation (Haden et al 2012). These latter hypotheses offer interesting avenues to clarify the specific
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses induced when climate change is brought closer to the self.
Furthermore, it can help us better understand how risk perception and emotional reactivity associated with the
personal threat to the self can lead to mitigation and/or adaptation.
Finally, this study is not without limitations. We will discuss three of them, which should be kept in mind
when interpreting our findings. First, our results cannot be generalized to the entire French population, as our
sample comprises solely undergraduates. We can hypothesize that, even if they are not more exposed to the
visible consequences of climate change, they are more informed about its immediate effects on the local area,
which may explain the strong proximity to climate change reported in this study. Further studies should include
more diverse samples to investigate whether climate change is indeed perceived as more distant in the overall
population, and if the effectiveness of the combined method in reducing perceived distance could be enhanced
in a population for whom the risk seems more distant. Second, the experimental material used to communicate
about the close versus distant consequences of climate change was a substantial text presented in the form of a
scientific report along with a complex graph of temperature trends. To ensure sufficient attention to the
message, we excluded 151 participants whose maximum reading speed was above 800 words per minute. This
raises questions about the relevance of this material, especially in a digital context, where participants are more
accustomed to shorter and more vivid contents (e.g., infographics, images, or short videos). We, therefore,
recommend paying greater attention to the media used in future studies, not only to enhance ecological validity
but also to ensure that participants are sufficiently attentive for the manipulations to be successful. Third, we
tested the effect of psychological distance to climate change on self-reported mitigation intentions and support
for mitigation policies. Unfortunately, we cannot conclusively determine the effectiveness of the proximizing
strategy in promoting effective behaviors for mitigating climate change. To our knowledge, only two studies
have incorporated actual behaviors by asking participants to report the mitigation actions they had undertaken
in the two weeks following the experimental manipulation of psychological distance (Bashir et al 2014, Soliman
et al 2018). Both provided promising results for enhancing self-reported behaviors. To validate these initial
findings and to thoroughly assess the potential benefits of implementing a climate change proximizing strategy,
future studies should incorporate more behavioral measures.
10
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

6. Conclusion and perspectives
Overall, despite the call for communicating more extensively about the immediate consequences of climate
change (e.g., IPCC 2023, Council of Europe 2016), this work appears to confirm the limitations of this
traditional approach to proximizing climate change in changing, alone, individuals’perceived distance (as
highlighted in recent systematic reviews by Keller et al 2022, or van Valkengoed et al 2023). However, it suggests
that localizing these immediate consequences in relation to people’s experience is crucial to significantly reduce
the perceived distance of climate change, and then, enhance the perceptual, affective, and behavioral responses
to this issue. Thus, from a theoretical perspective, our findings remind us that psychological distance is highly
subjective, something that has been largely overlooked in the context of climate change. From a practical
perspective, these results support the idea that stakeholders in climate change communication should not only
present the consequences on a regional scale and at the end of the decade but should also make it easier to relate
the events depicted to the individual’s personal reality. In addition to our experimental task, this process could
be enhanced by personalized communication strategies (such as risk mapping, Mildenberger et al 2019)and
immersive experiences (e.g., serious games, Fox et al 2020, or immersive videos, Breves and Schramm 2021),
which have recently been employed as methods for making climate change more proximal, replacing the two
traditional methods presented in this article. Beyond the scope of psychological distance and Construct Level
Theory, this approach also aligns with other research advocating for the integration of laypeople’s knowledge
with scientific information to enhance climate change management (see Reyes-García et al 2016 for a review on
local knowledge). In this context, we recommend policymakers, environmental scientists, and coordinators of
environmental education programs to work together to develop place-based communication methods that
combine both (1)objective scientific knowledge with personalized tools and (2)inhabitants’subjective
knowledge concerning direct experiences related to climate change in their local areas.
Acknowledgments
We thank the students who contributed to the study and the University’s Communication Department for
sharing the survey with students. We also thank the University’s Language Department for their assistance in
proofreading this article and our colleague Adam Chesterman for his translation of the measurement scales.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the following URL/DOI: https://osf.io/
ydb84/?view_only=5332011f411f47c5a9169ee462fe7642.
Statement and declarations
Funding
This work was supported by the Normandy Region [grant RIN 100%, 2023042608310800001180003645, 2021].
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to declare.
Ethics approval
This study was conducted in full accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2008)and the ethical standards
established by the University’s Psychology Department, which follows the American Psychological Association
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and the Code of Conduct (APA, 2017)for the ethical treatment of human
participants. However, under current French legislation, research studies are not required to obtain official
ethical validation, and our university does not have a Research Ethics Committee capable of providing us with an
IRB number.
11
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

Data and materials availability
The material and the dataset of this study are available as supplementary materials and on the OSF platform
(https://osf.io/ydb84/?view_only=fa5421532c2c490eb999898aa539ce69). The material is provided with
additional information regarding methodology and results in the ‘methodology and material’document (Word
format). The dataset is provided without personal data that could compromise participants’anonymity (Excel
format).
Authors’contribution
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Details of each author’s contribution are provided
below. Camille Langlais: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal analysis; Investigation; Data curation;
Visualization; Writing - original draft preparation; Validation. Maxime Mauduy: Methodology; Software;
Formal analysis; Writing—review & editing; Validation. Christophe Demarque: Conceptualization;
Methodology; Writing—review & editing; Validation. Olivier Cantat: Methodology; Resources; Validation.
Cécile Sénémeaud: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation; Project administration; Writing—original
draft; supervision; Validation; Funding acquisition.
ORCID iDs
C Langlais https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9772-9983
M Mauduy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4604-5314
References
Abdi H and Williams L 2010 Contrast analysis Encyclopedia of Research Design 1243–51
ADEME 2022 Représentations sociales du changement climatique −23ème vague du baromètre [Social representations of climate change −
23rd wave of the barometer][Report](https://librairie.ademe.fr/changement-climatique-et-energie/5917-representations-
sociales-du-changement-climatique-23-eme-vague-du-barometre.html)
Aronson E, Wilson T D and Brewer M B 1998 Experimentation in social psychology ed D T Gilbert et al The Handbook of Social Psychology
4th edition99–142(McGraw-Hill)
Azadi Y, Yazdanpanah M and Mahmoudi H 2019 Understanding smallholder farmers’adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs,
risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: evidence from wheat growers in Iran J. Environ. Manage. 250 109456
Bashir N Y, Wilson A E, Lockwood P, Chasteen A L and Alisat S 2014 The time for action is now: subjective temporal proximity enhances
pursuit of remote-future goals Social Cognition 32 83–93
Brauer M and McClelland G 2005 L’utilisation des contrastes dans l’analyse des données: comment tester les hypothèses spécifiques dans la
recherche en psychologie? L’année Psychologique 105 273–305
Breves P and Schramm H 2021 Bridging psychological distance: the impact of immersive media on distant and proximal environmental
issues Computers in Human Behavior 115 106606
Brügger A 2020 Understanding the psychological distance of climate change: the limitations of construal level theory and suggestions for
alternative theoretical perspectives Global Environ. Change 60 102023
Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton T A and Pidgeon N F 2015 Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change Nat.
Clim. Change 51031–7
Brügger A, Morton T A and Dessai S 2016 Proximising’climate change reconsidered: a construal level theory perspective Journal of
Environmental Psychology 46 125–42
Carmi N and Kimhi S 2015 Further than the eye can see: psychological distance and perception of environmental threats Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 21 2239–57
Chu H 2022 Construing climate change: psychological distance, individual difference, and construal level of climate change Environmental
Communication 16 883–99
Chu H and Yang J Z 2018 Taking climate change here and now—mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance Global
Environ. Change 53 174–81
Chu H and Yang J Z 2019 Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change Science Communication 41 761–89
Chu H and Yang J Z 2020 Risk or efficacy? How psychological distance influences climate change engagement Risk Anal. 40 758–70
Council of Europe 2016 Communicating climate change and biodiversity to policy makers [Report]. Retrieved from (https://rm.coe.int/
16806c11bb)
de Guttry C, Doring M and Ratter B 2017 How distant is climate change? Construal level theory analysis of german and taiwanese students
statements International Journal of Asian Social Science 7434–47
de Guttry C, Süsser D and Döring M 2019 Situating climate change: psychological distances as tool to understand the multifaceted
dimensions of climate change meanings Geoforum. 104 92–100
Demarque C, Lo Monaco G, Apostolidis T and Guimelli C 2012 Socialisation, perspectives temporelles et implication personnelle: une étude
dans le champ de l’environnement Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale 92 351–69
Ejelöv E, Hansla A, Bergquist M and Nilsson A 2018 Regulating emotional responses to climate change—a construal level perspective
Frontiers in Psychology 9629
Fox J, McKnight J, Sun Y, Maung D and Crawfis R 2020 Using a serious game to communicate risk and minimize psychological distance
regarding environmental pollution Telemat. Inform. 46 101320
12
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

Gadermann A M, Guhn M and Zumbo B D 2012 Estimating ordinal reliability for likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual,
empirical, and practical guide Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 17 1–13
Gallucci M 2019 GAMLj: General analyses for linear models [jamovi module]. Retrieved from (https://gamlj.github.io/)
Gifford R 2008 Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49
273–80
Grothmann T and Patt A 2005 Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change Global
Environ. Change 15 199–213
Guillard M, Fleury-Bahi G and Navarro O 2021 Encouraging individuals to adapt to climate change: relations between coping strategies and
psychological distance Sustainability 13 992
Haden V R, Niles M T, Lubell M, Perlman J and Jackson L E 2012 Global and local concerns: what attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to
mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS One 7e52882
Hart P S and Nisbet E C 2012 Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion
polarization about climate mitigation policies Communication Research 39 701–23
IPCC 2023 Summary for policymakers Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of WorkinBodyg Groups I, II and III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Core Writing Team et al (IPCC)1–34
Jones C, Hine D W and Marks A D G 2017 The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate
change: reducing psychological distance Risk Anal. 37 331–41
Judd C M, McClelland G H and Ryan C S 2017 Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach to regression, ANOVA, and Beyond (Routledge)
Keller E, Marsh J E, Richardson B H and Ball L J 2022 A systematic review of the psychological distance of climate change: towards the
development of an evidence-based construct Journal of Environmental Psychology 81 101822
Kim K and Ahn S J 2019 The moderating role of cultural background in temporal framing: focusing on climate change awareness advertising
Asian Journal of Communication 29 363–85
Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D and Zararsiz G 2014 MVN: an R package for assessing multivariate normality The R Journal 6151–62
Langlais C, Bertoldo R, Guignard S and Sénémeaud C 2022 «Il faut faire vite, ça chauffe »: distance psychologique, changement climatique
et comportements écocitoyens Anticipation Ppsychologique Et Représentations de l’avenir: Enjeux Théoriques, Méthodologiques Et
Pratiques (Mardaga)67–94
Lee K and Barnett J 2020 Will polar bears melt? A qualitative analysis of children’s questions about climate change Public Understand. Sci. 29
868–80
Liberman N and Förster J 2009 Distancing from experienced self: how global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological
distance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97 203–16
Liberman N and Trope Y 1998 The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal
construal theory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 5–18
Loy L S and Spence A 2020 Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change Journal of Environmental Psychology 67
101388
Mardia K V 1974 Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies The
Indian Journal of Statistics 36 115–28 (http://jstor.org/stable/25051892)
McDonald R I, Chai H Y and Newell B R 2015 Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’of climate change: an integrative review
Journal of Environmental Psychology 44 109–18
Michel-Guillou E 2015 Water resources and climate change: water managers’perceptions of these related environmental issues Journal of
Water and Climate Change 6111–23
Mildenberger M, Lubell M and Hummel M 2019 Personalized risk messaging can reduce climate concerns Global Environ. Change 55 15–24
Milfont T L 2010 Global warming, climate change and human psychology Psychological Approaches to Sustainability: Current Trends in
Theory, Research and Practice. (Nova Science Publishers)19–42
Pawlik K 1991 The psychology of global environmental change: some basic data and an agenda for cooperative international research
International Journal of Psychology 26 547–63
Poortvliet P M, Niles M T, Veraart J A, Werners S E, Korporaal F C and Mulder B C 2020 Communicating climate change risk: a content
analysis of IPCC’s summary for policymakers Sustainability 12 4861
R Core Team 2021 R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Logiciel]R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://R-
project.org/
Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Guèze M, Garcés A, Mallo M, Vila-Gómez M and Vilaseca V 2016 Local indicators of climate
change: the potential contribution of local knowledge to climate research WIREs Climate Change 7109–24
Rickard L N, Yang Z J and Schuldt J P 2016 Here and now, there and then: how ‘departure dates’influence climate change engagement Global
Environ. Change 38 97–107
Rogers R W 1975 A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change The Journal of Psychology 91 93–114
Rosseel Y 2012 Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling Journal of Statistical Software 48 1–36
Rouquette M-L 1980 La Pensée Sociale Et Les Phénomènes de Rumeurs (Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Provence)
Sacchi S, Riva P and Aceto A 2016 Myopic about climate change: cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 65 68–73
Scannell L and Gifford R 2013 Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus globalmessage framing in
engagement Environment and Behavior 45 60–85
Schuldt J P, Rickard L N and Yang Z J 2018 Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing
climate change Journal of Environmental Psychology 55 147–53
Simandan D 2016 Proximity, subjectivity, and space: rethinking distance in human geography Geoforum 75 249–52
Simandan D 2020 Distance. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography 393–7(Elsevier)
Singh A S, Zwickle A, Bruskotter J T and Wilson R 2017 The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on
support for adaptation policy Environ. Sci. Policy 73 93–9
Soliman M, Alisat S, Bashir N Y and Wilson A E 2018 Wrinkles in time and drops in the bucket: circumventing temporal and social barriers
to pro-environmental behavior SAGE Open 8215824401877482
Spence A, Poortinga W and Pidgeon N 2012 The psychological distance of climate change: psychological distance of climate change Risk
Anal. 32 957–72
The jamovi project 2022 jamovi. (Version 2.3)[Computer Software]. Retrieved from (https://jamovi.org)
Trope Y and Liberman N 2010 Construal-level theory of psychological distance Psychological Review 117 440–63
13
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al

Van Der Linden S, Maibach E and Leiserowitz A 2015 Improving public engagement with climate change: five ‘best practice’insights from
psychological science Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 758–63
Van Lange P A M and Huckelba A L 2021 Psychological distance: how to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self Current
Opinion in Psychology 42 49–53
van Valkengoed A M, Steg L and Perlaviciute G 2023 The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated One Earth 6362–91
Wang S, Hurlstone M J, Leviston Z, Walker I and Lawrence C 2019 Climate change from a distance: an analysis of construal level and
psychological distance from climate change Frontiers in Psychology 10 230
Wang S, Hurlstone M J, Leviston Z, Walker I and Lawrence C 2021 Construal-level theory and psychological distancing: implications for
grand environmental challenges One Earth 4482–6
Yang J Z, Rickard L N, Liu Z and Boze T 2021 Too close to care? A replication study to re-examine the effect of cued distance on climate
change engagement Environmental Communication 15 1–11
Yzerbyt V, Muller D, Batailler C and Judd C M 2018 New recommendations for testing indirect effects in mediational models: the need to
report and test component paths Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115 929–43
14
Environ. Res. Commun. 6(2024)115017 C Langlais et al