Cited by 41Climate Change Communication and PerceptionClimate Change Policy and EconomicsPolicy Transfer and Learning

Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks

Open access
Jasny, Lorien, Dewey, Amanda M., Robertson, Anya Galli, Yagatich, William, Dubin, Ann H., Waggle, Joseph McCartney, Fisher, Dana R.·2018·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Although substantial attention has focused on efforts by the new Administration to block environmental policies, climate politics have been contentious in the US since well before the election of Donald Trump. In this paper, we extend previous work on empirical examinations of echo chambers in US climate politics using new data collected on the federal climate policy network in summer 2016. We test for the similarity and differences at two points in time in homophily and echo chambers using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM) to compare new findings from 2016 to previous work on data from 2010. We show that echo chambers continue to play a significant role in the network of information exchange among policy elites working on the issue of climate change. In contrast to previous findings where echo chambers centered on a binding international commitment to emission reductions, we find that the pre-existing echo chambers have almost completely disappeared and new structures have formed around one of the main components of the Obama Administration's national climate policy: the Clean Power Plan. These results provide empirical evidence that science communication and policymaking at the elite level shift in relation to the policy instruments under consideration.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0203463

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • There is substantial evidence that segregated online communities emerge around politically contentious topics.

    “Although recent evidence suggests that general information consumption on social media might not be an echo-chamber for many users (21, 22), there is nevertheless substantial evidence supporting the argument that segregated online communities emerge around politically contentious topics (23, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 20).”

    From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [12]The Clean Power Plan. Harvard Law Review. 2016; 129: 1152– 1159.
  2. [30]UNFCCC. List of Participants, Conference of the Parties Twenty-First Session [Internet]. 2015 Dec. Available: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/inf03p01.pdf
  3. [41]Harris B. What the Supreme Court’s Stay of the Clean Power Plan Means for the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation Moving Forward. In: UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy [Internet]. 12 2 2016 [cited 7 Aug 2018]. Available: http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/what-the-supreme-courts-stay-of-the-clean-power-plan-means-for-the-epas-greenhouse-gas-regulation-moving-forward/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jasny, L., Dewey, A. M., Robertson, A. G., Yagatich, W., Dubin, A. H., Waggle, J. M., & Fisher, D. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Dayton (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Fisher, Dana R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2018-09-14
Volume
13
Issue
9
Pages
e0203463
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890429857
Cited by
41
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
11.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (G-16-1609-151514-CLS)
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 › Policy Transfer and Learning
Keywords
echo chambers, homophily, policy elites, information sharing, Clean Power Plan, climate policy, science communication, Obama administration climate policy, network structure change
MeSH terms
Models, Theoretical, Policy Making, United States, Government Regulation, Climate Change

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