Cited by 227Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits

Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M.·2012·American Journal of Political Science

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.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?

  • 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.”

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