Social Media, Political Polarization, and Climate Change: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/RCR.V13.S4Keywords:
Social Media, Political Polarization, Climate Change, Systematic Literature ReviewAbstract
Research on environmental communication reveals that addressing the impact of social media on climate change-related discussions is urgently needed if we are to accelerate the transition toward climate-neutral societies. To this end, this systematic literature review presents the findings of a content analysis of 27 peer-reviewed scientific articles investigating the relationship between social media, political polarization, and climate change—preceding Elon Musk's bid to acquire Twitter on April 14, 2022. The review yields contradictory findings with regard to the degree of polarization in climate change-related conversations on social media: 13 publications find some instances of polarization, 6 report none, and 8 remain inconclusive. Despite these divergent results, the review points to clear relationships between the existence of polarized climate change-related conversations in the studies' findings and their foci, type of data employed, and forms of polarization approached. Specifically, polarized climate change-related discussions on social media clearly overshadow studies that explore communicative interactions, utilize digital trace data, and address affective polarization. In contrast, in publications investigating the effects of exposure to climate change-related information on social media, particularly those relying on self-reported data to examine ideological polarization, the predominant trend is either the absence of polarization or inconclusive results.
References
Adam, S., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Reber, U. (2019). Coalitions and counter-coalitions in online contestation: An analysis of the German and British climate change debate. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2671-2690.
Aichner, T., Grünfelder Matthias, Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: A review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 215-222.
Al-Rawi, A., OʼKeefe, D., Kane, O., & Bizimana, A. J. (2021). Twitter's fake news discourses around climate change and global warming. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 729818.
Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E. (2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598-620.
Arlt, D., Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2019). Between fragmentation and dialogue. Twitter communities and political debate about the Swiss "nuclear withdrawal initiative". Environmental Communication, 13(4), 440-456.
Bohr, J. (2020). "Reporting on climate change: A computational analysis of U.S. newspapers and sources of bias, 1997–2017". Global Environmental Change, 61, 102038.
Bounegru, L., De Pryck, K., Venturini, T., & Mauri, M. (2020). "We only have 12 years": YouTube and the IPCC report on global warming of 1.5 ºC. First Monday, 25(2), 1.
Bridge, G. (2021). Social network analysis of# climateaction on Twitter. In The Sustainability Debate ( pp. 237-250). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change: An Interdisciplinary, International Journal Devoted to the Description, Causes and Implications of Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694. doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
Brüggemann, M., Elgesem, D., Bienzeisler, N., Gertz, H. D., & Walter, S. (2020). Mutual group polarization in the blogosphere: Tracking the hoax discourse on climate change. International Journal of Communication, 14, 24.
Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, 1(1), 233-253.
Cann, T. J. B., Weaver, I. S., & Williams, H. T. P. (2021). Ideological biases in social sharing of online information about climate change. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0250656.
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M. & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26.
Chapman, D. A., Corner, A., Webster, R., & Markowitz, E. M. (2016). Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environmental Change, 41, 172-182.
Chen, T. H. Y., Salloum, A., Gronow, A., Ylä-Anttila, T., & Kivelä, M. (2021). Polarization of climate politics results from partisan sorting: Evidence from Finnish Twittersphere. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102348.
Chen, W., Pacheco, D., Yang, K. C., & Menczer, F. (2021). Neutral bots probe political bias on social media. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5580.
Collins, L., & Nerlich, B. (2015). Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: A corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 189-207.
Cook, B. I., Mankin, J. S., & Anchukaitis, K. J. (2018). Climate change and drought: from past to future. Current Climate Change Reports, 4(2), 164–179. doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0093-2
Dalton, R. J. (1987). Generational change in elite political beliefs: The growth of ideological polarization. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 976-997.
Diehl, T., Huber, B., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2021). Social media and beliefs about climate change: A cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 197-213.
Falkenberg, M., Galeazzi, A., Torricelli, M., Di Marco, N., Larosa, F., Sas, M., . . . Baronchelli, A. (2022). Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change, 12(12), 1114-1121.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340-2350.
Hakimi, L., Eynon, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2021). The ethics of using digital trace data in education: A thematic review of the research landscape. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 671-717.
Häussler, T. (2019). Patterns of polarization: Transnational dynamics in climate change online networks in the US and Switzerland. The Information Society, 35(4), 184-197.
Helmuth, B., Gouhier, T. C., Scyphers, S., & Mocarski, J. (2016). Trust, tribalism and tweets: Has political polarization made science a "wedge issue"?. Climate Change Responses, 3(1), 3.
Huntington, H. E., & Anderson, A. A. (2015). Holy Frack, it's climate change: Comparing talk about climate change and fracking on Twitter in the context of an extreme weather event. In Biennial Conference on Communication and Environment (pp. 1-15). Hobart, Australia, Tasmania.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.
Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S. (2015). Polarized frames on "climate change" and "global warming" across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11-17.
Jennings, F. J., Allen, M. W., & Le Vu Phuong, T. (2021). More plastic than fish: Partisan responses to an advocacy video opposing single-use plastics. Environmental Communication, 15(2), 218-234.
Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45, 188-206.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Marlow, T., Miller, S., & Roberts, J. T. (2021). Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump's announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 21(6), 765-777.
Meza, X. V., Shapiro, M., & Park, H. W. (2018). Climate change emotions on YouTube: The case of before the flood. The Korean Data Analysis Society, 20(4), 1697-1708.
Moernaut, R., Mast, J., Temmerman, M., & Broersma, M. (2022). Hot weather, hot topic. polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 25(8), 1047-1066.
Olausson, U. (2018). "Stop Blaming the Cows!": How livestock production is legitimized in everyday discourse on Facebook. Environmental Communication, 12(1), 28-43.
Ooms, J. (2022). Pdftools: Text extraction, rendering and converting of PDF Documents. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pdftools
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71).
Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94785.
R Core Team, R. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/
Robison, & Mullinix. (2016). Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 261-282.
Röchert, D., Neubaum, G., Ross, B., Brachten, F., & Stieglitz, S. (2020). Opinion-based homogeneity on YouTube: Combining sentiment and social network analysis. Computational Communication Research, 2(1), 81-108.
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019). Credibility of climate change denial in social media. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 127.
Serrano-Contreras, I.-J., García-Marín, J., & Luengo, Ó. G. (2020). Measuring online political dialogue: Does polarization trigger more deliberation?. Media and Communication, 8(4), 63-72.
Shapiro, M. A., & Park, H. W. (2018). Climate change and YouTube: Deliberation potential in post-video discussions. Environmental Communication, 12(1), 115-131.
Sikder, O., Smith, R. E., Vivo, P., & Livan, G. (2020). A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 5493.
Stier, S., Breuer, J., Siegers, P., & Thorson, K. (2020). Integrating survey data and digital trace data: key issues in developing an emerging field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503-516.
Terren, L. & Borge, R. (2021). Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research, 9. 99-118
Tyagi, A., Babcock, M., Carley, K. M., & Sicker, D. C. (2020, October). Polarizing tweets on climate change. In International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation (pp. 107-117). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Tyagi, A., Uyheng, J., & Carley, K. M. (2020, December). Affective polarization in online climate change discourse on Twitter. In 2020 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM) (pp. 443-447). New York, NY: IEEE.
Uyheng, J., Tyagi, A., & Carley, K. M. (2021, June). Mainstream consensus and the expansive fringe: Characterizing the polarized information ecosystems of online climate change discourse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 (pp. 196-204). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462486
van Eck, C. W., Mulder, B. C., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Echo chamber effects in the climate change blogosphere. Environmental Communication, 15(2), 145-152.
We are social. (2023). Digital 2023 October Global Statshot Report. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2023/10/digital-2023-october-global-statshot-report/
Weber, T. J., Hydock, C., Ding, W., Gardner, M., Jacob, P., Mandel, N., . . . Van Steenburg, E. (2021). Political polarization: Challenges, opportunities, and hope for consumer welfare, marketers, and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(2), 184-205.
Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126-138.
Yuan, S., & Lu, H. (2020). "It's global warming, stupid": Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1003-1025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marc Esteve-del-Valle (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The philosophy of the journal is to be open and to make all articles accessible. It is our belief that open access is a must in the future of science.
Authors who publish with RCR accept a slightly modified Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
You, as author, retain the copyrights for your paper, but the Review of Communication Research is granted exclusivity for publication of the article. The agreement allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal. We do not want third parties to make a commercial use of the article, unless we agree it with authors.
The journal will run an open review process as well as a traditional peer review process.
When the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will get a doi number and get available online to facilitate early citation.
The journal will post the published article to many public repositories for further diffusion and permanence.
You, as author, are permitted and encouraged to post your work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on your website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
If you have any doubts, please, contact the editor: editor@rcommunication.org
Many thanks for submitting your work to this journal.
