IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcli/v5y2015i8d10.1038_nclimate2666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks

Author

Listed:
  • Lorien Jasny

    (National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place, Suite 300 Annapolis, Maryland 21401, USA
    Q-Step Centre, University of Exeter)

  • Joseph Waggle

    (University of Maryland, 2112 Art-Sociology, College Park Maryland 20742, USA)

  • Dana R. Fisher

    (University of Maryland, 2112 Art-Sociology, College Park Maryland 20742, USA)

Abstract

Diverse methods have been applied to understand why science continues to be debated within the climate policy domain. A number of studies have presented the notion of the ‘echo chamber’ to model and explain information flows across an array of social settings, finding disproportionate connections among ideologically similar political communicators. This paper builds on these findings to provide a more formal operationalization of the components of echo chambers. We then empirically test their utility using survey data collected from the community of political elites engaged in the contentious issue of climate politics in the United States. Our survey period coincides with the most active and contentious period in the history of US climate policy, when legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions had passed through the House of Representatives and was being considered in the Senate. We use exponential random graph (ERG) modelling to demonstrate that both the homogeneity of information (the echo) and multi-path information transmission (the chamber) play significant roles in policy communication. We demonstrate that the intersection of these components creates echo chambers in the climate policy network. These results lead to some important conclusions about climate politics, as well as the relationship between science communication and policymaking at the elite level more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorien Jasny & Joseph Waggle & Dana R. Fisher, 2015. "An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 782-786, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcli:v:5:y:2015:i:8:d:10.1038_nclimate2666
    DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2666
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nclimate2666?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Momsen, Katharina & Ohndorf, Markus, 2022. "Information avoidance, selective exposure, and fake (?) news: Theory and experimental evidence on green consumption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Malin, Stephanie A. & Mayer, Adam & Crooks, James L. & McKenzie, Lisa & Peel, Jennifer L. & Adgate, John L., 2019. "Putting on partisan glasses: Political identity, quality of life, and oil and gas production in Colorado," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 738-748.
    3. Richard Thomas Watson & Kirk Plangger & Leyland Pitt & Amrit Tiwana, 2023. "A Theory of Information Compression: When Judgments Are Costly," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1089-1108, September.
    4. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2023. "Expressive voting versus information avoidance: experimental evidence in the context of climate change mitigation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 45-74, January.
    5. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Phelps, Jacob & Zabala, Aiora & Daeli, Willy & Carmenta, Rachel, 2021. "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. Raul P. Lejano & Jennifer Dodge, 2017. "The narrative properties of ideology: the adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 195-215, June.
    8. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    9. Alexandre Morin-Chassé & Erick Lachapelle, 2020. "Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 31-40, March.
    10. Valeria Burdea & Jonathan Woon, 2023. "Getting it Right: Communication, Voting, and Collective Truth Finding," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 443, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    12. Sténs, Anna & Mårald, Erland, 2020. "“Forest property rights under attack”: Actors, networks and claims about forest ownership in the Swedish press 2014–2017," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    13. John Chung-En Liu & Bo Zhao, 2017. "Who speaks for climate change in China? Evidence from Weibo," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 413-422, February.
    14. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Denghang Chen & Yanlong Guo & Chenyang Wang & Yinrui Xu & Han Zhang, 2022. "Dispersion and Disparity: Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis of Research on Climate Change Science Communication," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    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:nat:natcli:v:5:y:2015:i:8:d:10.1038_nclimate2666. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.