IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9933.html

Up and Down With… Polarisation? Intrinsic and Instrumental Polarisation Dynamics in US Climate Policy Debates

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Leifeld

    (Department of Social Statistics, University of Manchester, UK)

  • Dana R. Fisher

    (School of International Service, American University, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Leifeld & Dana R. Fisher, 2025. "Up and Down With… Polarisation? Intrinsic and Instrumental Polarisation Dynamics in US Climate Policy Debates," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9933
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9933
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    2. Dana Fisher & Philip Leifeld & Yoko Iwaki, 2013. "Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 523-545, February.
    3. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2020. "Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 410-425, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    2. Geoffrey Henderson & Matto Mildenberger & Leah C. Stokes, 2025. "The effect of environmental voter mobilization on voter turnout and environmental attitudes: evidence from a field experiment in British Columbia, Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    4. Holtmaat, Ellen Alexandra & Adolph, Christopher & Prakash, Aseem, 2020. "The global diffusion of environmental clubs: how pressure from importing countries supports the chemical industry’s Responsible Care® program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    5. Clochard, Gwen-Jirō, 2025. "Using a brief contact to improve trust in the police by the youth," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Eva Fernández G. & Monica Di Gregorio & Carlos Bravo‐Laguna & Petr Ocelík, 2025. "Relational Processes and Networks in Environmental Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    7. Marlene Kammerer & Jack Baker & Lukas Paul Fesenfeld & Maiken Maier & Simon Montfort & Karin Ingold, 2025. "Hijacking or helping?—How political actors use the COVID-19 pandemic in the climate discourse to advocate their policy beliefs and preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(3), pages 469-506, September.
    8. Ghinoi, Stefano & Wesz Junior, Valdemar João & Piras, Simone, 2018. "Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 68-80.
    9. Allison Ford & Kari Marie Norgaard, 2020. "Whose everyday climate cultures? Environmental subjectivities and invisibility in climate change discourse," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 43-62, November.
    10. Elizabeth A. Sharrow, 2021. "Sports, Transgender Rights and the Bodily Politics of Cisgender Supremacy," Laws, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-29, July.
    11. Freddi, Eleonora & Potters, Jan & Suetens, Sigrid, 2024. "The effect of brief cooperative contact with ethnic minorities on discrimination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 64-76.
    12. Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz & James Stoutenborough & Scott Robinson, 2015. "Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 487-503, August.
    13. Jiawei Fu & Donald P. Green, 2025. "Causal Inference for Experiments with Latent Outcomes: Key Results and Their Implications for Design and Analysis," Papers 2505.21909, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    14. repec:bcp:journl:v:9:y:2025:i:24:p:942-949 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Mark C. J. Stoddart & Yixi Yang, 2023. "What are the roles of regional and local climate governance discourse and actors? Mediated climate change policy networks in Atlantic Canada," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(6), pages 1144-1168, November.
    16. Sara Giunti & Andrea Guariso & Mariapia Mendola & Irene Solmone, 2024. "Hacking Anti-Immigration Attitudes and Stereotypes: A Field Experiment in Italian High Schools," Development Working Papers 499, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    17. Dorison, Charles A. & Minson, Julia A., 2022. "You can’t handle the truth! Conflict counterparts over-estimate each other’s feelings of self-threat," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    18. Simon Schaub & Florence Metz, 2020. "Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 184-199.
    19. Hu, Zheng & Xu, Yingzhi, 2025. "Can new energy demonstration cities break through the multiple carbon lock-in? Evidence based on double machine learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    20. Kate O’Neill & Erika Weinthal & Patrick Hunnicutt, 2017. "Seeing complexity: visualization tools in global environmental politics and governance," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 490-506, December.
    21. Melanie Nagel & Keiichi Satoh, 2019. "Protesting iconic megaprojects. A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1681-1700, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9933. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.