Framing Climate Change on Social Media: Emotional Pathways to Affective Climate Polarization

Research increasingly demonstrates that affective polarization (AP) extends beyond partisan identities and can form around specific political issues. When such issues become salient, moralized, and identity-relevant, they can create opinion-based in-groups and out-groups capable of producing affective divides as strong as, or stronger than, partisan ones. Climate change represents one such issue across European liberal democracies, as it is politically contested, strongly linked to moral evaluations, and capable of eliciting behavioural engagement. Yet despite its centrality in contemporary European politics, we know little about how communication about climate change, particularly on social media, shapes AP between supporters and opponents of climate action. This paper examines how social media framing of climate change relates to affective climate polarization (ACP), conceptualized as the affective distance between in-groups and out-groups defined by respondents’ own climate positions, and whether these effects operate through emotional reactions. The theoretical point of departure is threefold. Firstly, opinion-based identities can form around salient issues, and these identities generate affective evaluations of like-minded and opposing individuals. Secondly, emotions function as key micro-foundations of AP, as negative emotions often heighten perceived threat and reinforce group boundaries, whereas positive emotions may either reduce hostility or strengthen in-group warmth. Thirdly, framing shapes which considerations and appraisals individuals prioritize when interpreting political messages, thereby influencing the emotional reactions that follow. Together, these ideas suggest that different ways of framing climate change on social media can trigger different emotional reactions, which in turn shape ACP differently for pro-climate respondents, defined as individuals favouring increased environmental protection, and anti-climate respondents, defined as those sceptical of further climate action. To evaluate these dynamics, we fielded a 1×3 between-subjects survey experiment (N = 1,261) in a probability-based online panel consisting of Swedish-speaking Finns, a context characterized by low levels of partisan AP but strong issue orientation. Respondents were randomly assigned to view a fictitious Instagram post about climate change framed in gain terms (highlighting potential benefits), loss terms (emphasizing negative consequences), or a balanced frame that presented both positive and negative aspects. After exposure, respondents reported their emotional reactions and rated climate in-groups and out-groups using feeling thermometers. Based on this data we used mediation analyses, conducted separately for pro- and anti-climate groups, to identify whether and to what extent framing exerts indirect effects on ACP through its impact on emotional reactions. The results show that framing affects emotions but not ACP itself. Gain frames boost positive emotions and loss frames elicit negative ones. Among pro-climate respondents, negative emotions increase ACP, whereas among anti-climate respondents they are weaker and tend to reduce ACP; positive emotions relate only marginally to ACP. These findings reveal that emotional mechanisms operate asymmetrically as the same message can reinforce affective divides among climate supporters while leaving them unchanged or even weakened among climate skeptics. The results underscore that climate communication on social media must navigate a tension between mobilizing concern and avoiding further affective fragmentation.