The (in)disputable ‘power’ of images of outrage: public acknowledgement,emotional reaction,and image recognition

Abstract

A recent news image – that of a drowned 3-year-old Syrian boy washed ashore on the Turkish coast as a result of refugees fleeing the ongoing war in Syria – resonated with international audiences and world leaders, becoming a seeming catalyst for action. But, as time has shown, the effect was short-lived. Through survey data, this research explores iconic images and visual collective memory throughout history and into the era of digital news and social media. More specifically, the research considers connections between public acknowledgement, emotional reaction, and image recognition. Studying such relationships will help us to further understand the (in)disputable ‘power’ that famous photographs possess to imprint themselves onto people’s minds, thus leading to supposed effect and action.

Keywords

digital news iconic images journalism photojournalism quantitative survey method

Introduction

In modern human history, select images have become part of our collective visual consciousness. These photos come to be known as icons. We often claim, both in the profession and in academia, that these iconic images possess ‘power’ to imprint themselves onto people’s minds, leaving lasting impressions (Ewbank et al., 2009) and moving us to action (Harold and DeLuca, 2005; Kumar, 2006; Louw, 2003). A recent news image – that of a drowned 3-year-old Syrian boy washed ashore on the Turkish coast as a result of refugees fleeing the ongoing war in Syria – seemed to do just that. Our collective visual consciousness was aroused to horror following the publication and mass sharing of the harrowing image of the tiny boy’s lifeless body, resting face down in the sand, the waves lapping his angelic face.

The image, taken by Nilufer Demir and published across the globe, resonated with audiences and world leaders, becoming a catalyst for action. Germany and Austria opened their borders to crossing migrants (Migrant crisis, 2015), while Pope Francis urged Catholic churches to host refugees (Hutcherson et al., 2015). But this image – while undoubtedly haunting – was by no means the first published image of a child who died as a result of the migrant crisis; some estimates show that more than 10,000 children have died since the beginning of the Syrian conflict (Sly, 2015).

So what was it about this particular photo that, for at least one moment, seemingly united the world and moved us to action? Certainly photographs have the ability to imprint themselves in our minds and become part of our collective visual consciousness. And the photos of the drowned Syrian boy did just that. But only for a moment. Research by the European Journalism Observatory (2015) found that following the mass publication of the harrowing image, European media showed a ‘surge in sympathetic coverage’ of the refugee crisis, but the surge was short-lived rather than a ‘long term shift’ in media coverage. Reporting on that same study, On The Media suggested that the photo ‘signaled merely a blip of public and media empathy’, adding, ‘We all cried when we saw this photo. Then we forgot’ (We all cried, 2015).

With both theoretical and practical implications, this research uses survey data to explore iconic images and visual collective memory throughout history and into the era of digital news and social media. More specifically, the research considers connections between public acknowledgement, emotional reaction, and image recognition. Studying such relationships will help us to further understand the (in)disputable ‘power’ that photographs possess to imprint themselves onto people’s minds, leaving lasting impressions and generating action.

Iconic Images

An icon is ‘an image that refers to something outside of its individual components’ and carries a symbolic meaning for scores of viewers (Sturken and Cartwright, 2009: 36). Hariman and Lucaites (2007: 27) define ‘photojournalistic icons’ as ‘photographic images appearing in print, electronic, or digital media that are widely recognized and remembered, are understood to be representations of historically significant events, activate strong emotional identification or response, and are reproduced across a range of media, genres, or topics’. Perlmutter (1998) has outlined a leading construct for labeling images as iconic, with six criteria for the process of how the media select and make images iconic. To begin, the image must represent a significant or novel news event. Second, an icon emerges by its ability to act as a metonym of the event in how it represents or characterizes the event; the image becomes a marker that can stand for the event. Third, Perlmutter (1998) considers the ‘celebrity’ of the image and how the media take the image, frame it, and then promote it as the single visual of the event. The fourth construct is the prominence of display, which occurs when news managers publish or broadcast the image in elite news outlets in prime positions, such as the top of the broadcast or above the fold. Related, the fifth construct speaks to the frequency of the image and considers how the image appears across media outlets or becomes the subject of numerous stories and analysis. Finally, an image becomes iconic through its ability to generate a primordial theme through evocation of constructs of good versus bad, irony, conflict, etc. (Perlmutter, 1998). However, it is critical to note that while iconic photographs can ‘represent a certain trope’, not every image that represents a trope ‘gains the status of an icon’ (Zarzycka and Kleppe, 2013).

Two criteria for iconic image formation – public acknowledgment and emotional reaction – are the focus of this research. The impetus for this research and the subsequent method was twofold, resulting from both practice and theory: the global reaction to the harrowing image of a drowned Syrian boy and in response to the call from Domke et al. (2002) to develop research that examines audience reaction to iconic images rather than just studying the media content (the images themselves).

The ‘Power’ Of Icons

There is a commonly held assumption that iconic images hold ‘power’’ from the ability to stick with us to swaying public opinion to generating action (Harold and DeLuca, 2005; Kumar, 2006; Louw, 2003). News outlets across the globe made the claim that Demir’s heartrending image of a drowned Syrian boy was one such image. The Guardian called it an image that ‘shook the world’ (Khaleeli, 2015), while The Wall Street Journal counted it among those photos that ‘changed history’ (Pensiero, 2015). The underlying supposition is that photos such as this one – through their horrific realism – hold power to move audiences (and governments) from complacency to action.

Some research has shown that photographic icons can act as a ‘political catalyst’ (Harold and DeLuca, 2005: 265) in mobilizing Americans to action, as was the case with the photo of massacred Emmett Till and its impact on the civil rights movement. News images from Vietnam have been described by scholars as emotional catalysts for ending the Vietnam War (Kumar, 2006; Louw, 2003). Perlmutter (1998), however, debunks such a deterministic role of iconic news photographs, although he acknowledges that famous images solicit an emotional response and can change public opinion. But, he argues, their emotional power is limited and does not drive policy; despite the claims and a certain amount of scholarship, there simply is not enough empirical evidence to show that images have an effect on politics or public opinion (Perlmutter, 1998).

The literature now delves into two specific tenets of image iconicity, and the foundation for this research: public acknowledgement and emotional reaction.

Public Acknowledgment

Authoritative visuals presented in the news media can have an agenda-setting effect on audiences (Arpan et al., 2006; Fahmy et al., 2006; Miller and Roberts, 2010; Wanta, 1988). Effectively, past research has shown that through the ‘gatekeeping’ role, the elite media determine which news topics – through the selection and salience of issues presented in the media – are indeed important and thus ‘newsworthy’ (Whitney and Becker, 1982). The same is true for news photographs: the elite media select and allow for certain photographs to become iconic (Hariman and Lucaites, 2007; Perlmutter, 1998). In turn, the audience accepts these images as iconic ‘because of the authority of the media and the uniformity of the portrayal of the event’ (Dahmen and Miller, 2012: 7). Miller and Roberts (2010) show that many factors contribute to the remembrance of certain images over others. Regarding iconic images, Spratt et al. (2005: 119) argue that ‘reactions to such an image are highly personalized and depend on preexisting schema, previous knowledge, and experience.’ Moreover, recent research has shown that personal proximity to an event (Ahva and Pantti, 2014) or an extreme level of personal effect from an event (Miller and Roberts, 2010) can contribute to selection or value of imagery, whether captured by professionals or amateurs, and the eventual interpretation of iconic images. As such, ‘A pervasive media image can play a powerful role as participants negotiate their perceptions of national and cultural identity, particularly in a time of national crisis’ (Spratt et al., 2005: 119).

We must also consider changes in news formats. In the digital era, images are instantaneously transmitted from the place of their creation to global audiences. Iconic images are no exception. However, in the onslaught of pictures that get produced by the millions in the digital era, icons become a ‘speeded-up famous image’ (Perlmutter, 2006: 51) that is ‘instantly available, globally disseminated via the Web, and, perhaps, also fleeting in public consciousness’ (p. 55). Referring to these types of images as ‘hypericons’, Perlmutter (2006: 60) writes:

A key factor in remembering an event via a photo-icon is how often that icon appears and is publically defined as the icon that symbolizes the event. Here replacement rate is even more important, since the hypericon does not have time to establish itself through long-term repetition because other quasi-icons replace it quickly.

What is the value of public acknowledgement and visual collective memory of iconic images from a public and political perspective? Hariman and Lucaites (2007: 26) argue that ‘iconic photographs’ are a ‘leading artifact of public culture’. In a public context, culture is a ‘coherent set of social practices’. Iconic images become part of our public culture that ‘have developed historically through the use of modern communicative media to define the relationship between the citizen and the state’. Thus, iconic images – through shared public acknowledgement – have value in helping citizens navigate and understand the discourses of social and political contexts.

Emotional Reaction

What makes photographs influential – and contributes to iconicity – is ‘the high drama and emotional pull of symbolic moments of death, sacrifice, and patriotism’ (Griffin, 1999: 129). Images have been shown to evoke instant emotional reactions among their viewers and to possess an ‘attention grabbing capacity’ (Ewbank et al., 2009: 127), leaving a lasting impression. In fact, such affective reactions happen on a neural level, where memorable images with an impact produce a greater response.

People respond differently to a stimulus, and some reactions are affective (feelings, mood) while others are cognitive (Batra and Athola, 1990; Chapman and Edell, 1989). Exposure to graphic and emotionally charged images influences people’s affective response to them (Brosius, 1993; Iyer and Oldmeadow, 2006). Pfau et al. (2006: 152) argue, ‘Compared to text alone, news photographs compel greater attention, are more credible, and are more memorable.’ For example, newspaper photographs of Iraq war casualties accompanied by captions elicited greater emotional response of negative feelings such as puzzlement, anger and sadness than written newspaper stories alone.

Emotions, then, have been considered and treated as prominent actors in people’s processes of making decisions and forming opinions. This finding seems especially relevant to this study in that it helps to frame emotional responses as important – and accompanying – elements of how people perceive the world and form judgments about the world around them. Visuals that show elements of history – such as iconic photographs – then presumably play an important part in people’s understanding of the world around them.

Research Questions

Based on this discussion of theory and literature, the research asks:

RQ1: Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported acknowledgement?

RQ2: Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported emotional effect?

RQ3: Is there a correlation between reported levels of acknowledgement and emotional effect?

RQ4: Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported image recognition?

RQ5: Is there a correlation between reported levels of emotional recall and image recognition?

RQ6: Is there a correlation between reported levels of image importance and image recognition?

From there, the research questioned the commonly held supposition that iconic images do, in fact, have an effect on perceptions of public opinion and subsequent action.

RQ7: Is there a correlation between reported levels of acknowledgement and perceived severity of the situation?

RQ8: Is there a correlation between reported levels of emotional effect and perceived severity of the situation?

RQ9: Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported level of effect?

RQ10: Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported level of action?

Method

Eighteen images of noteworthy events in our collective American history were selected for analysis (see Table 1).¹ The images were selected based on research findings of visual journalism. In addition, many of the images were also Pulitzer Prize winning photographs, which added value and further justification for their selection. In most cases, the photograph selected was known by a common name and could be identified by the photographer. Two of the selected images were still frames from video footage. These 18 events and images were selected for key reasons: they were all events or moments in American history of which participants were expected to have general knowledge; they could all be said to be images precipitating ‘outrage’; they spanned a range of time from the late 1800s to the present; they represented different types of events from wars to politics to scientific advancement to natural disasters; and there are meaningful and impactful images from each event that have already garnered a considerable amount of scholarship regarding visuals of these events. It must also be stated that researchers fully expected that many of these images would be familiar to participants; indeed, that is the crux of iconic images: they must be remembered and recognized. Most important, the researchers selected a core group of six images based on recent media articles – following the publication and mass spread of the drowned Syrian boy photo – that cited those particular images as images that ‘shook the world’ (Khaleeli, 2015) and ‘changed history’ (Pensiero, 2015). In addition, based on recent research that argues that the digital news and social media age is complicating the formation of iconic images and a collective visual consciousness and the formation of ‘hypericons’, the researchers selected 12 additional images that covered more than a century of history from the late 1800s to the early 2010s.

Table 1.

Study images.

Six images cited by The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal that have led to effects.

1. Young girl burned by napalm, by Nick Ut (1972)

2. Tank man, Jeff Widener (1989)

3. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, image of a prisoner with hood and arms outstretched (early 2000s)

4. Young civil-rights demonstrator attacked by police dog, Bill Hudson (1963)

5. Migrant Mother, Dorothea Lange (1936)

6. Vulture and child in Sudan, Kevin Carter (1993)

Six well-known images, representing a cross section of historic events from the late 1800s to mid 1990s

1. Poverty in NYC, image of three children huddled on a grate, Jacob Riis (1890s)

2. WWII, images of emaciated people at Buchenwald, H Miller (1945)

3. Whole Earth, Earthrise, Astronaut William Anders (1968)

4. Boston fire escape collapse, Stanley Forman (1975)

5. Gulf War I, soldier and body bag, David Turnley (1991)

6. Firefighter and baby, Charles Porter (1995)

Six well-known images, representing events occurring within the digital age, post 2000

1. 9/11, plane approaching second tower; first tower on fire and smoking (2001)

2. Gulf oil spill, oil-covered pelican, Carolyn Cole (2010)

3. Occupy Wall Street, pepper spraying at UC Davis, Wayne Tilcock (2011)

4. Sandy Hook children in a line, Shannon Hicks (2012)

5. Boston Marathon bombing, cowboy hat hero helping victim, Charles Krupa (2013)

6. Syrian boy drowned, Nilufer Demir (2015)

The survey began with standard demographic questions. From there, each survey participant was randomly assigned 6 of the 18 images with associated questions. Researchers thought it paramount to limit the number of images to which participants were exposed to avoid survey fatigue. Reported data is based on the number of participants exposed to each image, rather than the total number of participants. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics, which allowed for the 18 images to be randomly assigned to participants in equal distribution and in random order. Participants were then exposed to one image at a time. Just the image was provided; no title, photographer, or caption was given. Participants were then asked a series of questions about their reaction to each image: their emotional reaction to the image (5-point, 7-item scale), their opinion on the image’s importance (5-point, 4-item scale), and their opinion on the severity of the situation depicted in the image. Next, participants were asked if they had seen the image prior to that viewing (5-point scale) and their confidence in their ability to identify the event associated with the image (5-point scale). If participants responded affirmatively that they could identify the event, they were then asked to name or describe the event in an open-ended question and two additional 5-point scale questions: participants’ opinion on the perceived effects of the photo on public opinion about the given event and participants’ opinion on the perceived effects of the photo on humanitarian/political action regarding the given event. Researchers thought it important that these perceived effects questions were only put to participants who felt confident in their ability to identify the event, so that perceived effects were based on some amount of inherent knowledge about the event and not just on an uninformed opinion.

Data for this study were collected through an online survey with a convenience sample recruited via social media. Because of the historic nature of the study and the literature regarding audience understanding of images, it was critical to include participants who were older than a typical college-age convenience sample. The method and survey instrument were reviewed and approved by the associated university IRB. Researchers posted three calls for participation that briefly explained that the survey was about photojournalism, with a link to the survey on their personal Facebook and Twitter pages; the calls for participation were posted in one-week increments during the month of October 2015. Completion of the survey was optional and no incentives were given. The requests for participation posts were made in one-week increments, and the survey was made available for a period of one month. While many of these images documented international news, this particular sample was drawn from American citizens; certainly, future research should replicate this study with international samples. The final sample was 249 respondents, with a mean age of 40 and 64 per cent of the sample identifying as female. More than 90 per cent of the sample identified as Caucasian with more than 50 per cent of the sample having a college degree. Again, this was clearly a convenience sample, and, therefore, the data collected from the sample are not generalizable to a larger population.

Public acknowledgement of image was based on two scales: image importance (4-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .721 and above) and image recognition (2-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .741 and above). The image importance scale was developed from iconic image theory and the tenet of public acknowledgement of the image as representative of an historically significant event (Hariman and Lucaites, 2007). The image recognition scale was developed from iconic image theory and the tenet of iconic images being widely recognized and remembered (Hariman and Lucaites, 2007).² Emotional reaction to image was based on one scale (7-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .748 and above) developed from iconic image theory and the tenet of iconic images activating strong emotional identification (Hariman and Lucaites, 2007). Those participants who reported a 3.0 or higher (5-point scale) regarding image recognition were then asked two follow-up questions regarding the image’s perceived effects.

Findings And Discussion

The theoretical tenets of iconic image theory suggest that both public acknowledgement and emotional effect are critical factors in the formation of iconic imagery. As such, the first two research questions asked, ‘Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported acknowledgement?’ and ‘Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported emotional effect?’ Related, the third research question asked, ‘Is there a correlation between reported levels of acknowledgement and emotional effect?’ Table 2 orders the 18 images by reported level of image importance (public acknowledgement) and emotional reaction.

Table 2.

Images ranked by reported level of image importance and emotional reaction.

	Image importance		Emotional reaction
WWII emaciated people (N = 66)	4.557	Vulture and child (N = 71)	3.962
Young girl napalm (N = 68)	4.515	WWII emaciated people (N = 66)	3.954
9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	4.429	Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.821
Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 68)	4.183	Gulf oil spill pelican (N = 64)	3.772
Whole Earth (N = 68)	4.159	Young girl napalm (N = 68)	3.764
Gulf oil spill pelican (N = 64)	4.104	9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	3.664
Tank man (N = 70)	4.039	Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 68)	3.431
Vulture and child (N = 71)	4.011	Sandy Hook children (N = 71)	3.425
Migrant Mother (N = 65)	3.924	Boston Marathon hero (N = 75)	3.25
Occupy Wall Street (N = 64)	3.92	Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	3.23
Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.866	Occupy Wall Street (N = 64)	3.219
Boston Marathon hat hero (N = 75)	3.839	Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.029
Gulf War I soldier (N = 73)	3.777	Firefighter and baby (N = 68)	3.019
Sandy Hook children (N = 71)	3.577	Gulf War I soldier (N = 73)	3.01
Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	3.504	Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	3.002
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	3.44	Tank man (N = 70)	2.899
Firefighter and baby (N = 68)	3.439	Migrant Mother (N = 65)	2.466
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.378	Whole Earth (N = 68)	1.202

Notes: Image importance (4-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .721 and above); Emotional reaction (7-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .748 and above).

As seen in Table 2, the five highest rated images in regard to importance related to American identity. While they are certainly images of interest across the globe, for this study sample of Americans, they could be said to represent collective American history in mythical ways: the narratives of WWII, Vietnam, 9/11 and the Civil Rights movement. Also present in the top five images is that of the Whole Earth and the visual representation of our home as a living organism. These images resonated with participants, reflecting the theoretical definition of the rhetorical work of iconic images and mythical understanding (Perlmutter, 1998). These images define the essence of what happened (or what we were fighting against) and what it meant. Interestingly, the Abu Ghraib image falls at the bottom of the importance scale, perhaps with understanding that it represented an American failure and, thus, a representation of ‘who we are not’ as a collective. It represented the antithesis of how we want to be defined.

Turning to reported emotional reaction, three of the top five images with the highest levels of reported emotional reaction picture children. Of the 18 images, seven pictured children. What is especially interesting – and also telling – about the reported levels of emotional reaction to the images with children is that the top three emotional reactions to images of children were images of foreign children on foreign soil. The four images that pictured American children on American soil garnered medium-level emotional reactions. It could perhaps be argued that this reaction is based on fear, rather than outrage. Images of dead or injured or suffering American children on American soil are too real, too horrifying, too unthinkable. Rather than acknowledging the emotions (and reality) that American children, too, suffer, it is far easier to hide behind the cloak of ignorance that violence and tragedy (and outrage) are reserved for foreign lands. Certainly, subsequent research should test this supposition.

For 17 of the images there was a significant positive correlation between emotional reaction and image importance (see Table 3). These data provide further justification of the value of both public acknowledgment and public emotional reaction to images as iconic. However, considering the relationship between reported levels of acknowledgement and emotional effect, image importance levels were generally moderate to high while reported levels of emotional reaction were generally low to moderate. This is perhaps somewhat surprising and should be explored in further research. A plausible conclusion, however, is that while participants were perhaps remiss to acknowledge painful emotional reactions, they still understood the political importance of the image. Regardless of emotional reaction, participants acknowledged these images as important historical and political moments.

Table 3.

Correlations between image importance and emotional reaction.

	Emotional reaction	Image importance	r
Vulture and child (N = 71)	3.962	4.011	.685***
WWII emaciated people (N = 66)	3.954	4.557	.647***
Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.821	3.866	.728***
Gulf oil spill pelican (N = 64)	3.772	4.104	.812***
Young girl napalm (N = 68)	3.764	4.515	.365**
9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	3.664	4.429	.433***
Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 68)	3.431	4.183	.781***
Sandy Hook children (N = 71)	3.425	3.577	.819***
Boston Marathon hero (N = 75)	3.250	3.839	.551***
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	3.230	3.440	.646***
Occupy Wall Street (N = 64)	3.219	3.920	.576***
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.029	3.378	.599***
Firefighter and baby (N = 68)	3.019	3.439	.571***
Gulf War I soldier (N = 73)	3.010	3.777	.559***
Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	3.002	3.504	.471***
Tank man (N = 70)	2.899	4.039	.628***
Migrant Mother (N = 65)	2.466	3.924	.512***
Whole Earth (N = 68)	1.202	4.159	.225

Notes: Image importance (4-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .721 and above); Emotional reaction (7-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .748 and above).

***p < .001; **p < .01.

Next the research asked, ‘Which images led to the highest levels of participants’ reported image recognition?’ Image recognition was based on a two-item scale. As seen in Table 4, Nick Ut’s Pulitzer Prize winning photo of a young girl badly burned by napalm in the Vietnam War received the highest levels of reported acknowledgement. Called the ‘signature’ Vietnam War image by Susan Sontag (2003: 57), scholarship has shown that Ut’s image is highly recognized and acknowledged by the public (Dahmen and Morrison, 2016). The second and third images with the highest levels of reported knowledge were Migrant Mother and Tank Man, which is also an expected finding. Interestingly, three images that The Guardian reported as ‘images that shook the world’ received moderate levels of reported knowledge. While Jacob Riis’ images of poverty in New York City are arguably among the most historically important images ever taken, they were taken more than a century ago and it is perhaps not surprising that one of these images garnered the lowest level of reported knowledge.

Table 4.

The image recognition was based on a two-item scale.

	Image recognition
Young girl burned by napalm (N = 68)	4.439
Migrant Mother (N = 65)	4.138
Tank man (N = 70)	4.136
WWII emaciated people at Buchenwald (N = 66)	4.023
Sandy Hook children in a line (N = 71)	3.747
Boston Marathon bombing cowboy hat hero (N = 75)	3.743
Whole Earth (N = 68)	3.623
Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.472
Occupy Wall Street, pepper spraying at UC Davis (N = 64)	3.447
Vulture and child (N = 71)	3.218
Civil-rights demonstrator attacked by police dog (N = 68)	3.141
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.108
OK bombing, firefighter and baby (N = 68)	2.871
Gulf War I soldier and body bag (N = 73)	2.521
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	2.261
Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	1.921

Note: Image recognition (2-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .741 and above); two images (9/11 and Gulf oil spill) were removed from this data set because the image recognition scale did not have an acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha.

Recalling the six images cited by The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal as critical and influential iconic images (as listed in Table 1), three of those images were indeed the top three images that received the highest levels for image knowledge. However, the other three (vulture and child, civil-rights demonstrator, and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse) received only average levels of image recognition. It must also be mentioned that the drowned Syrian boy image received only an average level of recognition, which is especially surprising considering that the survey data were collected only one month after the image was a viral phenomenon. Indeed, this finding echoes the conclusion, ‘We all cried when we saw this photo. Then we forgot’ (We all cried, 2015). The research then considered the relationship between reported levels of emotional impact and image importance with image recognition, asking, ‘Is there a correlation between reported levels of emotional recall and image recognition?’ and ‘Is there a correlation between reported levels of image importance and image recognition?’ There were not significant results across the board when considering the relationships between emotional reaction and reported knowledge. As seen in Table 5, 9 of the 16 images had significant, positive correlations between reported emotional impact and reported image recognition. In other words, for about half of the images, stronger emotional reactions positively correlated with image recognition. However, reported levels of importance led to a larger number of significant relationships with reported knowledge. For 14 of 16 images, there was a significant, positive correlation between reported image importance and reported image recognition. The preliminary conclusion of this data is that while emotional reaction can be connected to image recognition, it is not necessarily a predictor of image recognition. In other words, emotional reactions cannot be said to predict image recognition. However, based on the data, a preliminary conclusion could be that higher levels of reported image importance led to higher reported knowledge. Participants were more likely to report an image as ‘important’ if they had a stronger level of image recognition.

Table 5.

Reported levels of emotional impact and image importance with image recognition.

	Emotional impact	Image recognition	r	Image importance	Image recognition	r
Vulture and child (N = 71)	3.962	3.218	.257*	4.011	3.218	.289*
WWII emaciated people (N = 66)	3.954	4.023	.143	4.557	4.023	.289*
Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.821	3.472	.463***	3.866	3.472	.591***
Young girl burned by napalm (N = 68)	3.764	4.439	−.036	4.515	4.439	.389**
Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 68)	3.431	3.141	.373**	4.183	3.141	.233
Sandy Hook children in a line (N = 71)	3.425	3.747	.476***	3.577	3.747	.492***
Boston Marathon hero (N = 75)	3.250	3.743	.412***	3.839	3.743	.445***
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	3.230	2.261	.087	3.440	2.261	.289*
Occupy Wall Street (N = 64)	3.219	3.447	.089	3.920	3.447	.219
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.029	3.108	.390**	3.378	3.108	.748***
Firefighter and baby (N = 68)	3.019	2.871	.149	3.439	2.871	.355**
Gulf War I soldier (N = 73)	3.01	2.521	.087	3.777	2.521	.320**
Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	3.002	1.921	.158	3.504	1.921	.311*
Tank man (N = 70)	2.899	4.136	.421***	4.039	4.136	.735***
Migrant Mother(N = 65)	2.466	4.138	.272*	3.924	4.138	.465***
Whole Earth (N = 68)	1.202	3.623	.263*	4.159	3.623	.420***

Notes: Image importance (4-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .721 and above); Emotional reaction (7-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .748 and above); Image recognition (2-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .741 and above); Two images (9/11, Gulf oil spill) removed from data set because image recognition scale did not have an acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha;

***

p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

From there, the research tested the commonly held supposition that iconic images do, in fact, have an effect on perceptions of public opinion and subsequent action, by asking related questions: ‘Is there a correlation between reported levels of acknowledgement and perceived severity of the situation?’ and ‘Is there a correlation between reported levels of emotional effect and perceived severity of the situation?’ As seen in Table 6, all 18 images examined led to significant, positive correlations between image importance and perceived severity: the more important participants rated an image, the more severely they perceived the situation depicted in the image to be. And with the exception of one image, there were also across the board significant, positive correlations between emotional impact and perceived severity; stronger emotional reactions to an image led to higher levels of severity of the situation depicted in the image.

Table 6.

Reported levels of emotional impact and image importance with perceived severity of situation.

	Emotional impact	Perceived severity	r	Image importance	Perceived severity	r
Vulture and child (N = 71)	3.962	4.61	.533***	4.011	4.61	.547***
WWII emaciated people (N = 66)	3.954	4.76	.511***	4.557	4.76	.523***
Syrian boy drowned (N = 71)	3.821	4.39	.629***	3.866	4.39	.547***
Gulf oil pelican (N = 64)	3.772	4.38	.736***	4.104	4.38	.608***
Young girl burned by napalm (N = 68)	3.764	4.81	.201	4.515	4.81	.503***
9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	3.664	4.74	.564***	4.429	4.74	.419***
Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 68)	3.431	4.30	.646***	4.183	4.30	.695***
Sandy Hook children in a line (N = 71)	3.425	3.82	.677***	3.577	3.82	.776***
Boston Marathon hero (N = 75)	3.25	4.16	.521***	3.839	4.16	.649***
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 69)	3.23	4.25	.440***	3.44	4.25	.429***
Occupy Wall Street (N = 64)	3.219	3.65	.717***	3.92	3.65	.517***
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 73)	3.029	3.89	.634***	3.378	3.89	.634***
Firefighter and baby (N = 68)	3.019	4.07	.536***	3.439	4.07	.480***
Gulf War I soldier and body bag (N = 73)	3.01	3.79	.487***	3.777	3.79	.427***
Poverty in NYC (N = 63)	3.002	3.60	.556***	3.504	3.60	.583***
Tank man (N = 70)	2.899	4.19	.520***	4.039	4.19	.642***
Migrant Mother (N = 65)	2.466	3.54	.355**	3.924	3.54	.694***
Whole Earth (N = 68)	1.202	1.46	.710***	4.159	1.46	.246*

Notes: Image importance (4-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .721 and above); Emotional reaction (7-item, 5-point scale, Cronbach’s Alpha of .748 and above)

***

p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

One plausible conclusion is that emotional reactions and image recognition, as related to the image’s deemed importance, were connected to participants’ reactions to the severity of the given situation. These findings provide a thought-provoking data point given the work of Hariman and Lucaites (2007) and their acknowledgment of ‘iconic photographs’ as a ‘leading artifact of public culture’ (p. 26). Iconic images that were deemed more important and that led to stronger emotional reactions were connected to participants’ impressions of the severity of the situation. Putting this finding into context with theory, an emotional and important image that becomes part of the public culture and dialogue could indeed be connected to how participants think about an issue and the ensuing discourses regarding the political and social contexts of the given event.

Participants who reported a 3.0 or higher (on a scale of 5.0) in regard to image recognition were then asked two follow-up questions regarding the image’s perceived effects. As seen in Table 7, participants rated all 18 images as having a moderately strong to strong effect on influencing how people thought about the given situation. And while the perceived effects were not as strong regarding action, participants reported that about half of the images had moderately strong to strong effects in regard to leading to action in the given situation. Returning to the debate about the ‘power’ of icons, these data show that participants overwhelmingly responded that the 18 analyzed images did indeed have effects on how people thought about the given situation and perceived action regarding a given situation.

Table 7.

Participants’ reported level of effect on thoughts and actions.

	Effect on how people thought about situation		Led to action
WWII emaciated people (N = 56)	4.64	9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	4.30
Young girl napalm (N = 62)	4.58	WWII emaciated people (N = 56)	4.20
9/11 plane approaching (N = 74)	4.53	Young girl napalm (N = 62)	4.08
Tank man (N = 52)	4.48	Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 50)	4.04
Syrian boy drowned (N = 48)	4.38	Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 41)	3.93
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (N = 41)	4.37	Gulf oil spill pelican (N = 56)	3.75
Civil-rights demonstrator (N = 50)	4.18	Syrian boy drowned (N = 48)	3.58
Gulf oil spill pelican (N = 56)	4.16	Tank man (N = 52)	3.54
Vulture and child (N = 50)	4.14	Poverty in NYC (N = 15)	3.53
Boston fire escape collapse (N = 23)	4.13	Migrant Mother (N = 57)	3.47
Occupy Wall Street (N = 43)	4.12	Occupy Wall Street (N = 43)	3.40
Migrant Mother (N = 57)	4.09	Firefighter and baby (N = 34)	3.29
Poverty in NYC (N = 15)	4.07	Vulture and child (N = 50)	3.26
Boston Marathon hero (N = 69)	4.01	Boston fire escape collapse (N = 23)	3.26
Firefighter and baby (N = 34)	4.00	Boston Marathon hero (N = 69)	3.26
Sandy Hook children (N = 56)	3.93	Gulf War I soldier (N = 35)	3.03
Whole Earth (N = 51)	3.84	Sandy Hook children (N = 56)	2.84
Gulf War I soldier (N = 35)	3.60	Whole Earth (N = 51)	2.75

Notes: Both measures were a 1-item, 5-point scale.

Limitations

Certainly, it is a study limitation that data were collected from a convenience sample and therefore study findings are not generalizable. And while this study examined effects of images, which is an under examined approach, the quantitative survey method provided a breath of data without depth. Future research should consider taking a more in-depth and perhaps qualitative approach to more fully understanding the variables explored in this survey. In addition, future research should explore audience demographics/characteristics in searching for relationships between famous images and their potential effects or contributions to helping citizens understand political and social discourses.

Implications And Conclusions

As discussed at the onset of this research, a body of scholarship has shown that photographs have the ability to imprint themselves in our minds and become part of our collective visual consciousness. And the drowned Syrian boy photos certainly did just that. But only for a moment. Study participants rated the drowned Syrian boy image relatively high on both importance and emotional reaction, but they had limited reported image recognition. Regarding images of war, Susan Sontag (2003: 14) wrote, ‘For a long time some people believed that if the horror could be made vivid enough, most people would finally take in the outrageousness, the insanity of war.’ But as the reaction to the drowned Syrian boy image showed, the outrage was short-lived.

The data also provide interesting implications for iconic theory with the theoretical understanding that iconic images create a collective visual consciousness that helps audiences to navigate political discourses. However, as the data show, while participants were not hesitant to rate images as politically important, that level of political importance did not necessarily translate to image recognition. In other words, participants often rated images as important without having any direct image recognition or perceived knowledge of the event depicted in the image. As such, while the image may indeed be acknowledged as important, it certainly could not serve as a foundation for shared public discourse, as there was limited recognition of the image and given event.

Select research argues that photographic icons can act as a ‘political catalyst’ (Harold and DeLuca, 2005: 265) in mobilizing Americans to action. Other scholars, however, debunk iconic images as having any proven ‘power’ (Perlmutter, 1998). The findings of this study show that participants generally reported that the 18 images in the study did indeed lead to effects. Yet, it was those same participants who so quickly forgot the image of the drowned Syrian boy. Asking someone if they think an image would lead to action is not the same thing as actually determining if an image led to action. So while people may have ‘planned’ to take action after seeing the drowned Syrian boy image, limited to no action may have actually been taken. Again, while the drowned Syrian boy image garnered initial outrage, the effect was short-lived. More critical audiences will perhaps be less interested in any future images of dead Syrian children as it would be ‘old’ news and any emotional response the public might have could be muted, as compared to the original outrage. Syrian children are still drowning. While these images are still being taken and published, they are seemingly no longer deemed interesting nor do they garner outrage. The media spotlight and the public have moved on to the next crisis.

There is also a paradox. The Syrian boy image was not highly ranked on some scales even though the photo was taken and became viral just a month before the survey data were collected. Given the onslaught of images in digital visual culture, this is perhaps not surprising. The proliferation of images of outrage perhaps ‘cuts’ into the definition of an iconic image. The Syrian boy was an iconic image that everyone forgot, which means that it really was not an iconic image, by definition. So either the idea of an icon is being devalued through its virality in a digital visual culture or the image itself was not actually an icon, even though it proliferated across the internet. What this may imply is a changing definition and a re-defining of the role of what we currently theorize to be an iconic image. Again, some of the older icons were almost always recognized and ranked highly. The newest one – that of the drowned Syrian boy – was not. It may be a function of time and endurance, but it may also be because of the onslaught. Again, these implications may be theoretically significant regarding what icons are and what they do in digital, participatory culture. Returning to Perlmutter (2006), the ‘hypericon’ may help in understanding why a contemporary icon, like the Syrian boy image, went viral online, garnered much attention from journalists, government officials, pundits and commentators – and then just as quickly dropped out of circulation and the public’s attention. The Syrian boy image was an ‘hypericon’, a one-time wonder that lodged itself into social memory but only temporarily, outdone by other pictures that distracted from it when they came online. The Syrian boy photograph and other subsequent famous pictures that grab public attention become rushed icons in the digital world full of competition and fast circulation. Unlike Ut’s picture, which has lingered in collective memory for more than four decades and, as this research shows, has seared itself into public consciousness, the Syrian boy hypericon most likely will not, as the media and public attention have moved on to the next crisis.

In the digital and social media age, hundreds, if not thousands, of images are taken of large impact events. Consider a mass shooting: Another body bag. Another bloody victim. Another shocked and tearful onlooker. Another swarm of law enforcement. Another elected leader promising action. Another makeshift memorial. How do news outlets select just one image to elevate as ‘the’ crowning image of an event? While they may ultimately select just one, through digital news and social media, audiences are exposed to volumes of shocking and jarring and heartbreaking and unforgettable images, and in their volume, they are too easily forgotten. And, like little Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian boy whose image for a moment seemingly united the world, the subjects and causes of these images fade into the ubiquity of harrowing images. So while scholars, journalists, and audiences alike may claim that iconic images hold power, that power must be proven, which may be increasingly difficult in the age of digital news and social media.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors and there is no conflict of interest.

Notes

Biographical Notes

Nicole Dahmen is an Associate Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon. Her research focuses on ethical and technological issues in visual communication, with an emphasis on photojournalism in the Digital Age. Her work on visual ethics centers on the moral responsibilities of visual communicators. In regard to technology, her work examines the visual presentation of mass-mediated information and associated technologies. Her research is published in such diverse and leading journals as American Behavioral Scientist, Journalism Studies, Digital Journalism and Visual Communication. She blogs about Visual Communication in the Digital Age at

Address: School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, 1275 University of Oregon, Allen Hall Room 219, Eugene, OR 97403-1275, USA. [email: ndahmen@uoregon.edu]

Natalia Mielczarek is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Virginia Tech. She is a former journalist whose academic research specializes in iconic imagery. Her PhD is from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa.

Address: Department of Communication, Polytechnic Institute and State University, 181 Turner St NW, Shanks Hall, Room 121, Blacksburg, 24061, USA. [email: nmiel@vt.edu]

Daniel D Morrison is a Senior Instructor at the School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon. Prior to entering academia, Morrison worked as a photojournalist in more than 31 foreign countries, including six war zones. Since filing his first online feature story from Kenya in 1995, he has published from countries around the world, including Australia, Morocco, Mongolia, and Patagonia. His research examines iconic images.

Address: as Nicole Dahmen. [email: danmor@uoregon.edu]

References

Ahva

Pantti

(2014) Proximity as a journalistic keyword in the digital era: A study on the ‘closeness’ of amateur news images. Digital Journalism 2(3): 322–333.

Arpan

L.M.

, et al. (2006) News coverage of social protests and the effects of photographs and prior attitudes. Mass Communication & Society 9(1): 1–20.

Batra

Athola

(1990) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer affairs. Marketing Letters 2(2): 159–170.

Brosius

H.B.

(1993) The effects of emotional pictures in television news. Communication Research 20(1): 105–124.

Chapman

Edell

(1989) The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal of Marketing Research 26(1): 69–83.

Dahmen

N.S.

Miller

(2012) Redefining iconicity: A five-year study of visual themes of Hurricane Katrina. Visual Communication Quarterly 19(1): 4–19.

Dahmen

N.S.

Morrison

D.D.

(2016) Place, space, time: Media gatekeeping and iconic imagery in the digital and social media age. Digital Journalism 4(5): 658–678.

Domke

Perlmutter

Spratt

(2002) The primes of our times? An examination of the ‘power’ of visual images. Journalism 3(2): 131–159.

European Journalism Observatory (2015) Research: How Europe’s newspapers reported the migration crisis (9 November). Available at: http://en.ejo.ch/research/research-how-europes-newspapers-reported-the-migration-crisis (accessed 10 November 2015).

10.

Ewbank

M.P.

, et al. (2009) The amygdala response to images with impact. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4(2): 127–133.

11.

Fahmy

, et al. (2006) Visual agenda-setting after 9/11: Individuals’ emotions, image recall, and concern with terrorism. Visual Communication Quarterly 13(1): 4–15.

12.

Griffin

(1999) The great war photographs: Constructing myths of history and photojournalism. In: Brennen

Hardt

(eds) Picturing the Past: Media, History, and Photography. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 122–157.

13.

Hariman

Lucaites

J.L.

(2007) No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Harold

DeLuca

K.M.

(2005) Behold the corpse: Violent images and the case of Emmett Till. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8(2): 263–286.

15.

Hutcherson

Gray

Pleitgen

(2015) European migrant crisis. CNN.com , 7 September. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/06/europe/europe-migrant-crisis/ (accessed 8 September 2015).

16.

Iyer

Oldmeadow

(2006) Picture this: Emotional and political responses to photographs of the Kenneth Bigley kidnapping. European Journal of Social Psychology 36(5): 635–647.

17.

Khaleeli

(2015) Aylan Kurdi – and six other shots that shook the world. The Guardian, 4 September. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/04/aylan-kurdi-migrant-mother-shots-that-shook-the-world (accessed 5 September 2015).

18.

Kumar

(2006) Media, war, and propaganda: Strategies of information management during the 2003 Iraq war. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3(1): 48–69.

19.

Louw

P.E.

(2003) The ‘war against terrorism’: A public relations challenge for the Pentagon. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 65(3): 211–230.

20.

Migrant crisis: Austria to let people in from Hungary (2015) BBC News, 5 September. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34159780 (accessed 10 September 2015).

21.

Miller

Roberts

(2010) Visual agenda-setting after Hurricane Katrina: A study of those closest to the event. Visual Communication Quarterly 17(1): 31–46.

22.

Pensiero

K.M.

(2015) Aylan Kurdi and the photos that change history. The Wall Street Journal, 11 September. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/article_email/aylan-kurdi-and-the-photos-that-change-history-1442002594-lMyQjAxMTE1MjE5MjMxNzI3Wj (accessed 11 September 2015).

23.

Perlmutter

D.D.

(1998) Photojournalism and Foreign Policy: Icons of Outrage in International Crises. Westport, CT: Praeger.

24.

Perlmutter

D.D.

(2006) Hypericons: Famous news images in the Internet-digital-satellite age. In: Messaris

Humphreys

(eds) Digital Media: Transformation in Human Communication. New York: Peter Lang, 51–64.

25.

Pfau

, et al. (2006) The effects of print news photographs of the casualties of war. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83(1): 150–168.

26.

Sly

(2015) Why I tweeted the photo of the dead Syrian toddler. The Washington Post, 3 September. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/if-it-takes-pictures-of-dead-children-to-make-people-realize-children-are-dying-so-be-it/ (accessed 3 September 2015).

27.

Sontag

(2003) Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador.

28.

Spratt

Peterson

Lagos

(2005) Of photographs and flags: Uses and perceptions of an iconic image before and after September 11, 2001. Popular Communication 3(2): 117–136.

29.

Sturken

Cartwright

(2009) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

30.

We all cried when we saw this photo. Then we forgot. (2015) On The Media, 13 November. Available at: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/we-all-cried-when-we-saw-photo-then-we-forgot/ (accessed 14 November 2015).

31.

Wanta

(1988) The effects of dominant photographs: An agenda-setting experiment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 65(1): 107–111.

32.

Whitney

D.C.

Becker

L.B.

(1982) ‘Keeping the gates’ for gatekeepers: The effects of wire news. Journalism Quarterly 59(1): 60–65.

33.

Zarzycka

Kleppe

(2013) Awards, archives, and affects: Tropes in the World Press Photo contest 2009–11. Media, Culture & Society 35(8): 977–995.