The communication format Science & Cinema: reflecting on representations of science in movies for joint meaning-making

The communication format Science & 1 Cinema: reflecting on representations 2 of science in movies for joint meaning3 making 4 5 Hildrun Walter*, Fritz M. Treiber, Hilmar Brohmer, Thomas Brudermann, Ulrich 6 Foelsche, Heide Beranek-Knauer, Lucas Eder, Christina Maier, Helmut Jungwirth 7 8 ABSTRACT: We present ‘Science & Cinema, a science communication format 9 combining a cinematic atmosphere with scientific expertise. By examining clips from 10 various movies, the format encourages the audience to critically reflect on 11 representations of scientific topics in our popular culture. The evaluation of preand 12 post-event questionnaires, along with a focus group session, revealed that the format 13 appeals to different target groups, entertains, creates interest, and fosters 14 understanding and reflection. By making images explicit, the format shows potential to 15 contribute to the understanding and meaning-making of scientific topics that are 16 strongly present in social discourses. 17 18 Keywords: Science and Cinema; film; audience; fiction; reflection; public 19 understanding of science 20 Introduction 21 In this practice-insight, we present ‘Science & Cinema (S&C)’ for the first time – an 22 innovative science communication format that uses the powerful visual language of 23 movies to transport the audience into popular conceptions of science and scientific 24 topics. The screening of film clips sets the stage for a scientist who analyzes the 25 transported images and examines the conformities and divergences with established 26 scientific facts and research. This format aims (1) to attract people’s attention towards 27 science, (2) to provide deeper insights into the respective scientific field, and (3) to 28 engage the audience in a critical reflection on the representation of science and 29 scientific topics in movies. Here, we present the episode ‘Science & Cinema: Climate, 30 Collapse, Catastrophes’ as an example for the implementation of the format for the 31 topic of climate change. We report on the results of the concept evaluation and 32 conclude with practical recommendations for designing future science communication 33 events. 34 35 THIS MANUSCRIPT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW! * all authors are affiliated with the University of Graz; correspondence: [email protected] The ‘science communication as culture’ framework 36 Recently, broader conceptions of science communication have been proposed: Bucchi 37 and Trench (2021, p. 6) define science communication as “the social conversation 38 around science,” also recognizing images and ideas related to science in popular 39 culture. Instead of limiting science communication by strict strategic and prescriptive 40 notions, they acknowledge the diversity of formats and practices and suggest thinking 41 of science communication as “encouraging the public to think about, respond to and 42 discuss science and its role in society” (Bucchi & Trench 2021, p. 5). 43 44 In a similar vein, Davies and colleagues (Davies et al., 2019; Horst & Davies, 2021) 45 argue for conceptualizing science communication as cultural in nature. They consider 46 science communication as part of the public communication about science and 47 therefore propose that focusing on the meaning created by public stories can help 48 guide science communication practice and research. This cultural approach seems to 49 be particularly helpful when it comes to frequently debated topics in society, such as 50 climate change. 51 52 It has been argued that climate change is an especially challenging topic for 53 communication: it is abstract in nature, which facilitates psychological distance to the 54 topic (Spence et. al, 2012); political polarization and emotional debates raise 55 skepticism (Hahnel et al., 2020); misinformation strengthens existing misconceptions 56 (Treen et al., 2020), and lay people’s knowledge about the topic is often limited and 57 characterized by multiple misunderstandings (Fischer et al., 2019; Thaller & 58 Brudermann, 2020). In light of these challenges, there is a clear need for engaging 59 communication formats that recognize the role of conversations around science in 60 meaning-making. 61 62 The representations of scientific topics in popular culture influence our individual 63 perceptions and shared conceptions about science (Bucchi & Trench, 2021; Davies et 64 al., 2019). Studies have shown that climate-fiction films draw attention to climate 65 change, shaping our understanding and emotional responses through dystopian 66 visions (e.g., Hart & Leiserowitz, 2009; Lowe et al., 2006; Sakellari, 2015). When 67 developing a science communication strategy, it may be useful to actively account for 68 these science-related cultural definitions, depictions, and stories present in our society 69 (Horst & Davies, 2021; Sakellari, 2015). 70 Science & Cinema (S&C) 71 We designed the S&C format to attract people’s attention for science using the 72 engaging power of movies. In the landscape of science-audiovisual engagement, 73 formats differ in terms of film genres and involvement of experts and audiences. Sci-fi 74 nights are screenings of fictional mainstream films focusing on entertainment, whereas 75 cinema debates take up documentary films and include reflective discussions with 76 experts and the audience. Science film festivals and sci-art exhibitions mostly show 77 independent short films covering documentaries to artistic fiction. Film festivals mostly 78 are structured events with varying degrees of expert and audience involvement, while 79 exhibitions are usually discovered individually. 80 81 S&C takes its own place within this landscape showing clips from multiple movies. S&C 82 episodes last around 90 minutes and are organized into five narrative blocks. Each 83 block consists of a screening of thematically curated and compiled film clips followed 84 by a moderated discussion. In our episodes, we invite a scientist from our university, 85 but other experts in the respective field (scientists, science communicators, science 86 journalists) could take on the role of discussion participant. The alternation of 87 screenings of 5-10 minutes with discussion not only provides clear structure, it aims at 88 stimulating the audience’s attention. Clip selection allows a focused, yet emotional, 89 exploration of the cinematic representation of the scientific topic and its evolution in 90 movies over time. Whereas full-length films may be stronger in mentally absorbing 91 people into the story (narrative transportation) and in identification with characters, they 92 may distract the audience from the topic at hand (Griffin, 2017). Documentaries better 93 represent the nature of science; independent films are characterized by realism and 94 challenging classical cinematic tropes (Felgueiras & Ruão, 2025). S&C, however, uses 95 movies to integrate precisely these cultural images that they convey. The moderator96 scientist dialogue adds the scientific view on the topics and reflects how the images 97 may support or distort our perception of science. The participating expert analyzes the 98 clips for their degree of realism, corrects factual misrepresentations, clarifies potential 99 misunderstandings, and contextualizes the information based on current scientific 100 knowledge. In the end, the audience is invited to join the discussion. The S&C format 101 is suitable for various disciplines, as long as the topic has been addressed in movies 102 over time. We have created various episodes covering topics of natural sciences and 103 humanities, e.g., for microbiology (‘Zombies, monsters and mutants in science and 104 film’) or medieval research (‘Mongols, monks, minstrelsy: What medieval films like 105 Robin Hood and Braveheart reveal’). 106 The episode ‘Climate, Collapse, Catastrophes’ 107 We implemented the S&C concept for the topic of climate change in the episode 108 ‘Climate, Collapse, Catastrophes’ (Figure 1). Prominent climate scenarios and their 109 impacts build the five narrative blocks ice (into an ice age), water (melting poles, sea 110 level rise and floods), wind and extreme weather events, droughts, and migration; 111 covering five of seven main themes taken up in cli-fi films (Svoboda, 2016; excluding 112 preclima(c)tic stress disorder and antagonists which do not focus on impacts). For 113 detailed clip description and filmography see Supplementary File S1. The dense 114 presentation in thematic blocks makes the narratives and transported images explicit. 115 During a moderated discussion, the scientist examines these images and resumes the 116 scientific perspective 117 118 • Block 1 (ice): Clips show an ice age caused by the halt of the North Atlantic 119 current due to global warming. The vice-president admits mistakes made in the 120 CO2 reduction policy (The Day After Tomorrow; Emmerich, 2004). This is 121 followed by scenes from Snowpiercer (Joon-Ho, 2013), showing an ice-covered 122 city in the USA after a failed scientific Earth-cooling experiment. 123 124 After this screening, the moderator asks the scientist about the physical 125 connection of global warming and ice ages in geological history, and the 126 probability of them reoccurring in the (near) future. 127 128 • Block 2 (water): The squirrel Scrat (Ice Age; Saldanha, 2006) causes a dam 129 breach of a meltwater lake. Film sequences from AI, The Day After Tomorrow, 130 Waterworld (Reynolds & Costner, 1995), and Hard Rain (Salomon, 1998) 131 alternate, dramatically showing the destructive power of water. A.I. (Spielberg, 132 2001) depicts coastal cities worldwide situated meters under water due to 133 melted polar ice caps. 134 135 The scientist outlines the connection between CO2 emissions and the melting 136 of the polar ice, the possible extent of sea level rise, and its consequences. 137 138 • Block 3 (wind/extreme weather): A tornado sucks a man out of his bunker 139 (Twister; De Bont, 1996), followed by images of various extreme weather events 140 (deadly heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes, tsunamis) from The 141 Day After Tomorrow, Geostorm (Devlin, 2017), and Mad Max - Fury Road 142 (Miller, 2015). 143 144 The scientist explains the F-tornado scale and whether tornadoes can also 145 occur locally. It is discussed how recently experienced severe storms and heavy 146 rainfalls relate to climate change. 147 148 • Block 4 (droughts) starts with a narrative voiceover from Mad Max 2 (Miller, 149 1981), where the failure of politics led to a post-apocalyptic world, featuring 150 water scarcity and deserts. Scenes from Soylent Green (Fleischer, 1973) show 151 a world divided into rich and poor, where corpses are processed into food to 152 overcome shortages. 153 154 The moderator-scientist discussion touches upon desertification and its 155 consequences, food waste as source of CO2 emissions, and other lifestyle 156 issues like excessive water consumption. 157 158 • Block 5 (migration): In Sudan, a group of refugees start their journey to Europe 159 due to shortages in fuels and crop failures. A young man shoots a pistol into the 160 air out of joy after arriving on the Spanish coast and is then shot by soldiers (all 161 clips from The March; Wheatley, 1990). 162 163 Considering that The March presented several social challenges related to 164 climate change as early as 1990, the scientist mentions that there was already 165 a lot of scientific knowledge about climate change and possible strategies for 166 action available at that time. He discusses the slow implementation of climate 167 policy in relation to scientific progress. To avoid leaving the audience with 168 feelings of helplessness, the scientist integrates messages in line with the 169 concept of “constructive hope”, like thinking about ways to reach a desired goal 170 (pathway thinking; “Let's take freight transport as an example: transport costs 171 can be adjusted so that the absurd back-and-forth transport of goods across 172 Europe is no longer economically viable.”) or to strive to actively reach these 173 goals (agency seeking; “We have shown as humanity that we can solve 174 problems if we really recognize them, like the problem with the hole in the ozone 175 layer.”) (Ojala, 2023). 176 177 Figure 1: Concept of the science communication event ‘Science & Cinema: Climate, Collapse, 178 Catastrophes’ with impressions of the images used in movies. 179 Objectives 180 We evaluate the S&C format with regards to five questions: (1) which kind of audience 181 participates; (2) which impact does the venue have on the composition of the audience; 182 (3) what does the audience expect; (4) how do they perceive the event in terms of 183 entertainment, sparking interest, and scientific information; and (5) what are the 184 motivations and goals of the scientist engaged in the S&C? The intended outcome of 185 the event is to inspire critical reflection on scientific topics and their representations in 186 movies. As an indicator for initiated reflection, we examined how the event influenced 187 the audiences’ attitudes toward climate change regarding concern, risk perception, and 188 motivation. 189 Methods 190 The S&C event was held twice: once in a university lecture hall that was open to the 191 public and once in a cinema as part of a local film festival (see Figure 2). 192 193 We evaluated the S&C format as follows (1) a quantitative evaluation with pre-/post194 event online questionnaires with the audiences, (2) a qualitative evaluation through a 195 focus group after the event, and (3) a short, written interview with the participating 196 scientist. 197 198 199 Figure 2: Impressions of the two S&C: Climate, Collapse, Catastrophes events taking place in a 200 university lecture hall (1st row) and in a cinema as part of the ‘Science meets Fiction Festival’ (2nd row). 201 202 Pre-/post-event study 203 For data collection, participants completed the questionnaires online (Supplementary 204 File S2). We gathered 62 complete questionnaires at the university and 33 at the 205 cinema. The pre-event questionnaire captured participation motives, expectations, 206 current knowledge, and demographics. The post-event questionnaire gathered 207 feedback on the event, including whether expectations were met in terms of 208 entertainment, interest, and scientific information. In order to assess the format’s 209 potential to initiate reflection, participants were asked to which degree they had 210 changed their view on climate change in terms of understanding, knowledge, risk 211 perception, concern, and intention to act. The questionnaires are partially based on 212 van der Linden’s climate perception instrument (2015) and were adapted to our study’s 213 queries. The descriptive and quantitative data analysis was carried out in R. 214 Focus group session 215 To gain deeper insights and descriptive information about how the event was 216 perceived, participants were invited to take part in a focus group, which was only 217 realized after the university event due to organizational constraints. It was held three 218 days after the event (see Supplementary File S3 for the interview guide). Five people 219 participated, all between the ages of 24 and 34: four from a master’s program, one 220 university graduate. Statements and conclusions are therefore based on a small and 221 homogenous sample. The interview lasted 100 minutes. For qualitative content 222 analysis, the interview was transcribed and coded in MAXQDA2022 (for the transcript 223 and detailed results, see Supplementary Files S4 and S5). 224 Results 225 The S&C audience 226 We observed differences between the two audiences. Participants were younger at 227 university: 65% (n=40) were between 18 and 27 years old, whereas at the cinema, 228 60% (n=20) were between 28 and 45 (all data tables are available in Supplementary 229 File S6). Participants were balanced according to gender (university: 53%; cinema: 230 52% women). 231 232 Regarding education level, at the university, 39% indicated A-levels, 32% bachelor’s 233 degrees and 23% master’s degrees, 3% indicated a PhD, one compulsory school 234 (<1%). At the cinema, we observed higher values in the marginal categories with 12% 235 indicating compulsory school, and 15% holding a PhD. Also here, most participants 236 held A-levels (21%), bachelor’s (18%) or master’s degree (33%). We see clear 237 differences for the audiences’ affiliation with university (see Figure 3): whereas the 238 majority of the participants at university (77%) indicated close affiliation via their study 239 or work, 73% of the people visiting the cinema event had no affiliation with university. 240 241 242 Figure 3: Audiences' affiliation with the university differentiated for the two venues. 243 In both groups, participants often think about climate change (university: 85%, cinema: 244 75%) and express high concern (rating 5 on a 7-point-Likert scale; university: 92%, 245 cinema: 87%). In the pretest, the majority indicated high motivation to personally 246 engage against climate change (rating 5; university: 85%, cinema: 63%). However, 247 for the cinema setting, almost one third expressed rather low motivation (30% rated 2 248 or 3). 249 Perception of the S&C event 250 Participants mainly found out about the event via personal contacts (university: 66%, 251 cinema: 55%) and for the cinema via poster advertising (27%). Social media, 252 newsletters, and websites played minor roles (< 10%). 253 254 Participants expected primarily information (university: 89%, cinema: 88%) and 255 entertainment (university: 74%, cinema: 58%). Insights into research results 256 (university: 48%, cinema: 52%) and suggestions for climate action (university: 35%, 257 cinema: 39%) were expected at lower rates. 258 Entertainment and interest 259 Most people in the audience generally liked the event (mean value for the university 260 Muniv = 6.18  0.95; mean value for the cinema Mcin = 5.70  1.33; scale from 1 (‘not at 261 all’) to 7 (‘enjoyed it a lot’)). They were entertained (rating 5; university: 83%, cinema: 262 63%) and showed high interest (rating 5: university: 92%, cinema: 81%) (Table 1). 263 264 The focus group session reinforced findings that the S&C format is able to link 265 entertainment and scientific information (see also Table 2 and S4, pos. 265). The event 266 evoked various alternating emotions, sparked interest, and linked positive feelings with 267 the acquisition of knowledge (pos. 276-278, 369, 488-492). 268 Recommendations 414 Based on the evaluation, we make the following recommendations: 415 • Maintain a balance between entertaining stories and scientific insights, and 416 correct misrepresentations. Given that S&C audiences expected scientific 417 insights and entertainment rather than detailed research results, we recommend 418 focusing on general understanding of scientific concepts. 419 • Incorporate references to local environments to enhance the connection of 420 scientific topics to the self and community, which showed high resonance in our 421 focus group discussion (e.g., forest dieback, Table 2). 422 • Utilize film narratives to establish a connection with the audience and evoke an 423 emotional response. When utilizing emotion-based messaging, make prudent 424 use of clips eliciting negative emotions like fear and combine them with 425 messages of hope and solutions to promote emotional flow and mitigate 426 maladaptive effects (Dennison, 2024; Nabi et al., 2018). 427 428 Based on the lessons learned from implementation, we make the following practical 429 recommendations: 430 • Select event venues and frameworks according to the target audience. Our 431 results underline the importance of off-campus events to facilitate access for 432 people from diverse backgrounds. 433 • Reach out to facilitators within the community of your target audience to 434 advertise the event or to participate as a discussant. Our results showed that 435 most people engage due to personal contacts. 436 • Make sure to apply for film screening licenses while preparing your event. 437 Conclusions 438 Our perception of science and scientific topics is not only shaped by traditional science 439 communication itself, but also by the cultural conversation around science as a whole, 440 including images and representations conveyed in the media and our popular culture. 441 Taking these into account may guide new approaches in science communication 442 practice, since we can make them explicit, examine them, and encourage critical 443 reflection. This seems especially relevant in times of information overload and 444 increasing presence of false or misleading statements. The findings from our 445 evaluation suggest that the S&C format presented here is able to make the audience 446 question these images and to clarify the scientific perspective on the topic at hand. 447 Further, it is able to attract interest of both people with higher and lower formal affinity 448 levels to science. We argue that especially for scientific topics that are strongly present 449 in societal discourses, S&C can contribute to our understanding, reflection, and 450 development of cultural conceptions of science. 451 452 References 453 Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2021). Rethinking science communication as the 454 social conversation around science. JCOM, 20(03), Y01. 455 https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030401 456 Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in 457 experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and 458 engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. 459 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x 460 Davies, S. R., Halpern, M., Horst, M., Kirby, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2019). 461 Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in 462 public communication of science. JCOM, 18(05), A01. 463 https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201 464 Dawson, E., Iqani, M., & Lock, S. (2024). Why should we think about social 465 justice in science communication? JCOM, 23(04), E. 466 https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23040501 467 De Bont, J. (Director). (1996). Twister [Film], Universal Pictures. 468 Dennison, J. (2024). Emotions: functions and significance for attitudes, 469 behaviour, and communication. Migration Studies, 12(1), 1-20. 470 https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnad018 471 Devlin, D. (Director). (2017). Geostorm [Film], Skydance Media. 472 DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2017). Participation in informal science learning 473 experiences: The rich get richer? International Journal of Science 474 Education, Part B, 7(4), 356–373. 475 https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1360531 476 Emmerich, R. (Director). (2004). The Day After Tomorrow [Film], 20th 477 Century Studios. 478 Felgueiras, E., & Ruão, T. (2025). Science on the screen: the representation 479 of science in independent films. JCOM 24(03), A02. 480 https://doi.org/10.22323/2.24030202 481 Fischer, H., Amelung, D., & Said, N. (2019). The accuracy of German 482 citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge. Nature Climate 483 Change, 9(10), 776–780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0563-0 484 Fleischer, R. (Director). (1973). Soylent Green [Film], MGM. 485 Griffin, L. N. (2017). Audience Reactions to Climate Change and Science in 486 Disaster Cli-fi Films: A Qualitative Analysis. The Journal of Public Interest 487 Communications, 1(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v1.i2.p133 488 Gollwitzer, P., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal 489 Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in 490 Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 491 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1 492 Hahnel, U. J. J., Mumenthaler, C., & Brosch, T. (2020). Emotional 493 foundations of the public climate change divide. Climatic Change, 161(1), 494 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02552-0 495 Hart, P. S., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2009). Finding the Teachable Moment: An 496 Analysis of Information-Seeking Behavior on Global Warming Related 497 Websites during the Release of The Day After Tomorrow. Environmental 498 Communication, 3(3), 355-366. 499 https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903265823 500 Horst, M., & Davies, S. R. (2021). Science communication as culture: A 501 framework for analysis. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of 502 Public Communication of Science and Technology (3rd ed.)(p. 182-197). 503 Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242 504 Joon-Ho, B. (Director). (2013). Snowpiercer (Seolgugyeolcha) [Film], CJ 505 Entertainment. 506 Kirby, D. A. (2008). Cinematic science. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), 507 Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (1st 508 ed.)(p. 41-56). Routledge. 509 Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de França Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, 510 K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public 511 perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 512 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506063796 513 Miller, G. (Director). (1981). Mad Max 2 – The Road Warrior [Film], Kennedy 514 Miller Productions. 515 Miller, G. (Director). (2015). Mad Max – Fury Road [Film], Warner Bros. 516 Nabi, R. L., Gustafson, A., & Jensen, R. (2018). Framing Climate Change: 517 Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior. Science 518 Communication, 40(4), 442-468. 519 https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019 520 Müggenburg, H. (2021). Beyond the limits of memory? The reliability of 521 retrospective data in travel research. Transportation Research Part A, 522 145, 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.01.010 523 Ojala, M. (2023). Hope and climate-change engagement from a 524 psychological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49:101514. 525 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101514 526 Reynolds, K., & Costner, K. (Director). (1995). Waterworld [Film], Universal 527 Pictures. 528 Rosin, M.S., Storksdieck, M., O’Connell, K., Keys, B., Hoke, K., & 529 Lewenstein, B.V. (2023). Broadening participation in science through arts530 facilitated experiences at a cultural festival. PLoS ONE, 18(5), Article 531 e0284432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284432 532 Sakellari, M. (2015). Cinematic climate change, a promising perspective on 533 climate change communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 534 827-841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514537028 535 Saldanha, C. (Director). (2006). Ice Age – The Meltdown [Film], 20th Century 536 Studios. 537 Salomon, M. (Director). (1998). Hard Rain [Film], BBC. 538 Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The Psychological 539 Distance of Climate Change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. 540 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1539-6924.2011.01695.X 541 Spielberg, S. (Director). (2001). A.I. Artificial Intelligence [Film], Amblin 542 Entertainment. 543 Svoboda, M. (2016). Cli-fi on the screen(s): patterns in the representations of 544 climate change in fictional films. WIREs Clim Change, 7, 43-64. 545 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.381 546 Thaller, A., & Brudermann, T. (2020). “You know nothing, John Doe” – 547 Judgmental overconfidence in lay climate knowledge. Journal of 548 Environmental Psychology, 69, 101427. 549 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101427 550 Treen, K. M. d. I., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020). Online 551 misinformation about climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: 552 Climate Change, 11(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665 553 van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate 554 change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of 555 Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. 556 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012 557 Wheatley, D. (Director). (1990). The March [Film], BBC. 558 Open Science and Ethics Statement 559 This study was approved by the local University of [anonymized] Ethics Committee 560 (No. 2022/23/56). Informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. 561 Data and materials are available at the Open Science Framework repository 562 (https://osf.io/ahytv/?view_only=aab00304f900477cae9c3ce0b667ab3d). 563 Acknowledgements 564 We would like to sincerely thank all participants in this study and [anonymized] for his 565 support in event organization. We also thank [anonymized] and the organizational 566 team of the [anonymized] Festival for hosting the event at the cinema. 567