Audience Reactions to Climate Change and Science in Disaster Cli-fi Films: A Qualitative Analysis
Little scholarly attention has been paid to how audiences interpret pop culture messages about climate. This paper addresses this issue by taking up the case of disaster cli-fi films and exploring how audiences react to film representations of climate change. It draws on data from focus groups to evaluate audience responses to disaster cli-fi films. Analysis reveals that by only briefly discussing climate change in their plotlines, the films weaken their environmental message. The paper concludes with a discussion of the effects of disaster cli-fi films on environmental attitudes and suggestions for further research.
Barriga, C. A., Shapiro, M. A., & Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Science information in fictional movies: Effects of context and gender. Science Communication, 32(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/1075547009340338
Beattie, G., Sale, L., & McGuire, L. (2011). An inconvenient truth? Can a film really affect psychological mood and our explicit attitudes towards climate change? Semiotica, 187(1–4), 105–125. doi:10.1515/semi.2011.066
Bloom, D. (2017). The Cli-Fi Report. Retrieved from http://cli-fi.net/
Boykoff, J. M., & Boykoff, M. T. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
Boykoff, M. T., & Rajan, S. R. (2007). Signals and noise. Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK. EMBO Reports, 8(3), 207–211. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400924
Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
Braddock, K., & Horgan, J. (2016). Towards a guide for constructing and disseminating counternarratives to reduce support for terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(5), 381–404. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2015.1116277
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 114(1), 169. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x
Busselle, R. W., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259
Butler, A. C., Zaromb, F. M., Lyle, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Using popular films to enhance classroom learning: The good, the bad, and the interesting. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1161–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02410.x
Caputo, N. M., & Rouner, D. (2011). Narrative processing of entertainment media and mental illness stigma. Health Communication, 26(7), 595–604. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.560787
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Corbett, J., & Durfee, J. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26(2), 129–151. doi:10.1177/1075547004270234
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2010). The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research, 37(6), 857–875. doi:10.1177/0093650210362683
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. doi:10.1086/268763
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.111
Hall, A. (2003). Reading realism: Audiences’ evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of Communication, 53(4), 624–641. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02914.x
Hart, P. S., & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release of The Day After Tomorrow. Environmental Communication - A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(3), 355–366. doi:10.1080/17524030903265823
Howell, R. A. (2011). Lights, camera...action? Altered attitudes and behaviour in response to the climate change film The Age of Stupid. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 177–187.
Kahan, D. (2012). Why we are poles apart on climate change: The problem isn’t the public’s reasoning capacity; it’s the polluted science-communication environment that drives people apart. Nature, 488(7411), 255. doi:10.1038/488255a
Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kaplan, E. A. (2015). Climate trauma: Foreseeing the future in dystopian film and fiction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kirby, D. A. (2003a). Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 33(2), 231–268. doi:10.1177/03063127030332015
Kirby, D. A. (2003b). Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 261–278.
Konijn, E. A., van der Molen, J. H. W., & van Nes, S. (2009). Emotions bias perceptions of realism in audiovisual media: Why we may take fiction for real. Discourse Processes, 46(4), 309–340. doi:10.1080/01638530902728546
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Leiserowitz, A. (2004). Before and after the day after tomorrow: A US study of climate change risk perception. Environment, 46(9), 22–37.
Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 435–457. doi:10.1177/0963662506063796
Marsh, E. J., Butler, A. C., & Umanath, S. (2012). Using fictional sources in the classroom: Applications from cognitive psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 449–469. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9204-0
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger III, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-5
Merchant, B. (2013). Behold the Rise of Dystopian “Cli-Fi.” Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ypp7nj/behold-the-rise-of-cli-fi
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
Moyer-Guse, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
Mulligan, K., & Habel, P. (2011). An experimental test of the effects of fictional framing on attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 92(1), 79–99. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00758.x
Mulligan, K., & Habel, P. (2013). The implications of fictional media for political beliefs. American Politics Research, 41(1), 122–146. doi:10.1177/1532673X12453758
Murphy, P. (2014). Directing the weather, producing the climate. In Alex, R.S., Deborah, S.S., & Sachindev, P.S. (Eds.), Culture and media: Ecocritical explorations. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Murray, R. L., & Heumann, J. K. (2009). Ecology and popular film: Cinema on the edge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ohlheiser, A. (2017, September 11). Analysis | A running list of viral hoaxes about Irma — including one shared by the White House. The Washington Post Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
Parker, T. (2006). ManBearPig. Comedy Central. Retrieved from http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s10e06-manbearpig
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 57–85. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04
Porter, T. (2017, September 9). Here’s some of the fake news and false rumors about Hurricane Irma. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-irma-fake-news-false-rumors-spread-storm-662419
Rooney, B., Benson, C., & Hennessy, E. (2012). The apparent reality of movies and emotional arousal: A study using physiological and self-report measures. Poetics, 40, 405–422. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2012.07.004
Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (1999). The third-person effect. Communication Research, 26(5), 523. doi:10.1177/009365099026005001
Shen, F., Ahern, L., & Baker, M. (2014). Stories that count: Influence of news narratives on issue attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 98–117. doi:10.1177/1077699013514414
Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1021–1032. doi:10.1605/01.301-0019863810.2012
Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. doi:10.1111/risa.12140
Svoboda, M. (2014). The Long Melt: The Lingering Influence of The Day After Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/the-long-melt-the-lingering-influence-of-the-day-after-tomorrow/
Svoboda, M. (2016). Cli-fi on the screen(s): Patterns in the representations of climate change in fictional films. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 43–64.
Tan, E. S. H. (2008). Entertainment is emotion: The functional architecture of the entertainment experience. Media Psychology, 11(1), 28–51. doi:10.1080/15213260701853161
Authors publishing their work in the Journal of Public Interest Communications retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY NC) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. By agreeing to these terms, the author(s) grant and assign the following rights to the Publisher:
- The irrevocable, royalty-free right to publish, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Work in perpetuity throughout the world in all means of expression by any method or media now known or hereafter discovered, including electronic format.
- The irrevocable, royalty-free right to use the Author’s name and likeness in association with the Work in published form and in advertising and promotional materials, and
- The irrevocable, royalty-free right to license others to do any or all of the above.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website).