Despite Greta Thunberg's popularity, research has yet to investigate her impact on the public's willingness to take collective action on climate change. Using cross‐sectional data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (N = 1,303), we investigate the “Greta Thunberg Effect,” or whether exposure to Greta Thunberg predicts collective efficacy and intentions to engage in collective action. We find that those who are more familiar with Greta Thunberg have higher intentions of taking collective actions to reduce global warming and that stronger collective efficacy beliefs mediate this relationship. This association between familiarity with Greta Thunberg, collective efficacy beliefs, and collective action intentions is present even after accounting for respondents’ overall support for climate activism. Moderated mediation models testing age and political ideology as moderators of the “Greta Thunberg Effect” indicate that although the indirect effect of familiarity with Greta Thunberg via collective efficacy is present across all age‐groups, and across the political spectrum, it may be stronger among those who identify as more liberal (than conservative). Our findings suggest that young public figures like Greta Thunberg may motivate collective action across the U.S. public, but their effect may be stronger among those with a shared political ideology. Implications for future research and for broadening climate activists’ appeals across the political spectrum are discussed.

Images of animals, particularly polar bears, harmed by climate change are often used in environmental campaigns, despite warnings of potential reactance and resultant perceived distance from the issue. As an alternative to these emotional appeals, environmental campaigns could encourage an objective (i.e., emotionally detached) perspective on climate change impacts. The present research tests the effects of a message that encourage empathic vs. objective perspectives toward polar bears harmed by climate change on emotions and subsequent support for climate change activism among 241 American adults through an online survey. Contrary to popular warnings, the present research found no reactance toward portraying harm to polar bears from climate change and no benefits of taking an objective perspective toward the polar bears. Instead, portrayals of polar bears harmed by climate change motivated both environmentalists and non-environmentalists to donate money to environmental activist groups when they took an empathic perspective toward the animals. Empathy and hope explain effects for environmentalists and empathy, hope, worry, personal guilt, and boredom explain effects for non-environmentalists.

This article discusses the possible effects of climate change–related visual art, based on a comprehensive review of the psychological research literature. Taking a psychological perspective, potential effects of confrontation with such works of art are explored and a preliminary conceptual framework is proposed about special features of art that go beyond other means of communication. Potential barriers to change are discussed, as well as promising and often overlooked aspects that can trigger long-term changes, such as inspiration. Perceiving art demands attention, and processing art requires parts of the brain that are not normally accessed by typical communications about climate change. Art typically uses novel metaphors, analogies or narratives, which climate communication generally lacks. In addition, art can provide people with visualizations of the problem and give them a personal experience with the subject-matter, which is especially important regarding climate change as many people still see it as an abstract issue that poses no direct threat. Art may also help to establish a group identity and to give people a sense of being supported in their efforts to help combat climate change.