Up and Down With… Polarisation? Intrinsic and Instrumental Polarisation Dynamics in US Climate Policy Debates
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 17823283 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Philip Leifeld (0000-0002-6834-5705, University of Manchester, corresponding author), Dana R Fisher (0000-0002-4273-4294, American University) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Publication date | 2025-09-17 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Politics and Governance (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2183-2463 • E-ISSN: 2183-2463 |
| Publisher | Cogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT) |
| DOI | 10.17645/pag.9933 |
| OpenAlex | W4414284718 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 35 |
Political elites in the US are ideologically divided over climate change. We identify two perspectives: The intrinsic view on ideological climate polarisation views climate beliefs as entrenched parts of an actor’s identity and posits that ideological positions have factually shifted towards ever more extreme positions over time. The instrumental view, in contrast, emphasises that polarisation entrepreneurs mobilise their constituency to participate in the climate policy debate by amplifying ideological differences over climate-related focusing events when they arise, leading to fluctuations in visible polarisation, rather than a steady trend. This study examines which of the two perspectives holds in US Congressional and subnational media debates by analysing time trends of polarisation and phases of structural stability. We distinguish between endogenous events, which can be attributed to the political process, and exogenous focusing events, such as extreme events or those related to the international climate regime, and investigate which type of event tends to be associated with changes in polarisation. Applying two novel time series measures for discourse networks—structural polarisation and the detection of phases of structural stability—to the climate debate during the 112th to 114th Congress (2013–2017) and subnational print media in four swing states, we find that exogenous events are largely irrelevant while endogenous political dynamics increase the polarisation of the debate considerably. We find ups and downs of polarisation corresponding to distinct structural phases in which polarisation is linked to participation. This temporal fluctuation of polarisation around endogenous political events is consistent with the instrumental perspective
Biology and political orientation · Climate change · Ideology · Politics · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Social Media and Politics
Endogenous versus Exogenous Origins of Crises
The Political Divide on Climate Change
Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics
Mediatization as a Challenge
Going to Extremes
During Disaster
How Believing Climate Change is a “Hoax” Shapes Climate Skepticism in the United States
A historical turning point? Early evidence on how the Russia-Ukraine war changes public support for clean energy policies
When does discursive change happen? Detecting phase transitions in discourse networks of sustainability transitions
Sustainable energy transformations in an age of populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance
Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017
Disaster experience mitigates the partisan divide on climate change
The Denier-in-Chief
Understanding Polarization
Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate
Ground-truthing political elites in the public sphere
Trans‐Subsystem Dynamics
Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization
US Partisan Polarization on Climate Change
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Political Polarization in the American Public
A Group-Based Approach to Measuring Polarization
Time to Wake Up
Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation
| Citations per year | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |