Cited by 612Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial Media and PoliticsPolitical Theory and Democracy

The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse

Mutz, Diana C., Mondak, Jeffery J.·2006·The Journal of Politics

Abstract

Political dialogue among citizens offers numerous potential contributions to American politics, but attainment of these benefits hinges largely on the extent to which conversations cross lines of political difference. In what contexts are cross-cutting interactions most likely to thrive? Using data from five surveys, we find consistent evidence that the workplace is the social context best positioned to facilitate cross-cutting political discourse. Political discussion in the workplace involves a large number of discussants, and it involves greater exposure to people of dissimilar perspectives than does discussion in contexts such as the family, the neighborhood, or the voluntary association. We next consider whether workplace-based interactions are capable of producing beneficial effects. Despite the notoriously weak nature of work-based social ties, we find evidence that workplace-based exposure to differing political views increases people's knowledge of rationales for political perspectives other than their own and also fosters political tolerance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The online news audience is less ideologically segregated than in-person interactions with family, friends, coworkers, and political discussants.

    “Research using internet traffic data has even suggested that the online news audience is in fact less ideologically segregated than in-person interactions with family, friends, coworkers, and political discussants (70–72).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J.
Venue
The Journal of Politics
Published
2006-02
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
140-155
ISSN
  • 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2508
OpenAlex
W2170977349
Cited by
612
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
FWCI
59.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
political tolerance, political knowledge, social networks, political dialogue, civil society organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review