The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [72]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
“It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks
Cowan, S. K., & Baldassarri, D. (2018) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change
Levitan, L. C., & Verhulst, B. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x · Cited by 129 · see citing works
The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A., & Ognyanova, K. (2020) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12469 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Influencing Myself: Self-Reinforcement Through Online Political Expression
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650216644020 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
The Social Dimension of Political Values
Connors, E. C. (2020) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09530-3 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y · Cited by 74 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- 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