Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits
Abstract
Social networks play a prominent role in the explanation of many political phenomena. Using data from a nationally representative survey of registered voters conducted around the 2008 U.S. presidential election, we document three findings. First, we show that during this period, people discussed politics as frequently as (or more frequently than) other topics such as family, work, sports, and entertainment with frequent discussion partners. Second, the frequency with which a topic is discussed is strongly and positively associated with reported agreement on that topic among these same discussion partners. Supplementary experimental evidence suggests this correlation arises because people avoid discussing politics when they anticipate disagreement. Third, we show that Big Five personality traits affect how frequently people discuss a variety of topics, including politics. Some of these traits also alter the relationship between agreement and frequency of discussion in theoretically expected ways. This suggests that certain personality types are more likely to be exposed to divergent political information, and that not everyone is equally likely to experience cross‐cutting discourse, even in heterogeneous networks.
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?
When contact is unavoidable, people engage in selective disclosure, withholding their attitudes from people with whom they expect to disagree.
“When contact is unavoidable, people engage in selective disclosure232,233. That is, they simply withhold their attitudes from people with whom they expect to disagree.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [232]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 81 · Cited by 227
- Authors
- Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gerber, Alan S.
- Huber, Gregory A.
- Doherty, David
- Dowling, Conor M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01-23
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 849-874
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W1769825162
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 42.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- political debate, social networks, disagreement, Big Five personality traits, 2008 presidential election, political information exposure, heterogeneous networks
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