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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Qualitative analysis further showed that in rare instances of intergroup communication, more negative frames tended to prevail, featuring dismissal of climate change information as hoaxes, derailment of conversations to heated issues of identity, as well as overall higher levels of sarcasm and incivility [8], [17], [18].”
From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Relying consistently on manually annotated corpora and datasets of limited size, existing scholarship has faced barriers to measuring the emotional component of climate change discussions in a generalizable fashion [8], [17], [18].”
From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games
Putnam, R. D. (1988) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300027697 · Cited by 7,475
Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment.
Bongaarts, J. (1992) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.2307/1971875 · Cited by 3,113
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
The logic of congressional action
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-4778 · Cited by 1,802
Jstor (1993) · Cited by 1,593
Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230869 · Cited by 1,222
Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 · Cited by 1,217
Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2007) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,193
Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 · Cited by 904
A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008) · Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.3200/envt.50.5.26-35 · Cited by 780
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Cicerone R. J., 2001, Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions
- Fisher D. R., Climatic Change
- Kraemer R. A., 2007, Federalism and environmentalism in the United States and Germany
- Laumann E. O., 1987, The organizational state: Social change in national policy domains
- National Research Council, 2011, America’s climate choices: Panel on advancing the science of climate change
- 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
- Parry M. L., 2007, Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptations, and vulnerability
- Rucker P., 2011, Washington Post
- Sheppard K., 2011, Mother Jones
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage
Hart, P. S., Chinn, S., & Soroka, S. (2020) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547020950735 · Cited by 715
Moser, S. C. (2016) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.403 · Cited by 691
Leifeld, P. (2013) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12007 · Cited by 361
Self-citationDiscourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: traditions, trends, perspectives
Leipold, S., Feindt, P. H., Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2019.1660462 · Cited by 246
Sport Ecology: Conceptualizing an Emerging Subdiscipline Within Sport Management
McCullough, B. P., Orr, M., & Kellison, T. B. (2020) · Journal of Sport Management · doi:10.1123/jsm.2019-0294 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J., & Leifeld, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- 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
- 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
- green
- www.dora.lib4ri.ch
- 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
