CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 211Climate Change Communication and PerceptionClimate Change Policy and EconomicsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate

Open access
Fisher, Dana R., Waggle, Joseph, Leifeld, Philip·2013·American Behavioral Scientist
DOI 10.1177/0002764212463360
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

How do we understand political polarization within the U.S. climate change debate? This article unpacks the different components of the debate to determine the source of the political divide that is so noted in the mainstream media and academic literatures. Through analysis of the content of congressional hearings on the issue of climate change, we are able to explain political polarization of the issue more fully. In particular, our results show that, contrary to representations in the mainstream media, there is increasing consensus over the science of the issue. Discussions of the type of policy instrument and the economic implications of regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however, continue to polarize opinion. This article concludes by exploring how these findings help us understand more recent political events around climate change.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764212463360

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Cicerone R. J., 2001, Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions
  2. Fisher D. R., Climatic Change
  3. Kraemer R. A., 2007, Federalism and environmentalism in the United States and Germany
  4. Laumann E. O., 1987, The organizational state: Social change in national policy domains
  5. National Research Council, 2011, America’s climate choices: Panel on advancing the science of climate change
  6. Park H. S., Liu X., Vedlitz A. (2010). Framing climate policy debates: Science, network, and US Congress, 1976–2007 (Conference proceedings of the Policy Networks Conference 2010). Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2010/41
  7. Parry M. L., 2007, Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptations, and vulnerability
  8. Rucker P., 2011, Washington Post
  9. Sheppard K., 2011, Mother Jones

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 211

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J., & Leifeld, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
ORCID
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-11-02
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
70-92
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
DOI
10.1177/0002764212463360
OpenAlex
W2018045098
Cited by
211
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
25.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0826892)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
political polarization, climate change debate, congressional hearings, policy instruments, mainstream media coverage, United States climate policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review