Perceived risk of climate change
EVENT
We expected that enhancing mental imagery would lead to an increase in the perceived risk of climate change, that were of larger magnitude compared to both the spontaneous and prevented use of mental imagery (1). Subsequently, we also expected that preventing mental imagery would decrease the magnitude of change in perceived risk concerning climate change, compared to both the spontaneous and enhanced use of mental imagery (2). To test these hypotheses, we used split-plot ANOVAs 3 (condition) × 2 (time) to examine between- and within-subject differences, with planned comparisons. To answer our hypotheses our main interest was the interaction effects between condition and time, to see if the magnitude of the change in the variables is different depending on the condition (see Table Split-plot ANOVAs 3 (condition) × 2 (time) with planned comparisons.The risk perception values presented are based on the average value at each time. Table Comparing perceived risk in all three conditions revealed a significant main effect of time, participants perceived the risk to be more severe post-manipulation than pre-manipulation, no main effect of condition was identified. However, the expected interaction effect between condition and time was significant, indicating that the change in perceived risk varied in strength between the conditions. When comparing the conditions level for perceived risk post-manipulation with a simple main effect analysis (Sidak), no difference was found between either the control and enhanced condition (To explore the interaction effect further, we conducted our planned comparisons, first between the spontaneous mental imagery condition (control) to the enhanced condition. We again found a significant main effect of time, no main effect of condition, and a significant interaction effect. Although both the control and enhanced condition increased perceived risk of climate change after exposure to environmental risk event cues, the enhanced mental imagery increased perceived risk more than the control condition as hypothesized.Subsequently, we conducted our second planned comparison, between the spontaneous mental imagery condition (control) and the prevented condition. We again found a significant main effect of time, no main effect of condition, and an interaction effect. Again, both the control and prevented condition increased perceived risk of climate change, but as hypothesized the prevented mental imagery condition increased the perceived risk less than the control condition.Lastly, we conducted our third planned comparison between the enhanced and prevented conditions, we once again found a significant main effect of time, no main effect of condition, and a significant interaction effect. In line with our hypotheses, our results show that the level of mental imagery impacts the perceived risk of climate change—the more mental imagery used, the more the perceived risk of climate change was increased.