The Role of Personality in Political Talk and Like-Minded Discussion
Open accessAbstract
Political discussion is a key mechanism for the development of reasoned opinions and political knowledge, but online political discussion has been characterized as uncivil, intolerant, and/or ideologically homogeneous, which is detrimental to this development. In this paper, we examine the role of personality in various forms of political talk—online and offline—as well as like-minded discussion. Based on a 2017 survey conducted in the United Kingdom, United States, and France, we find that people who are open-minded and extraverted are more likely to engage in political talk but less likely to engage in like-minded discussion. Individuals who are older, less educated, introverted, and conscientious are more likely to find themselves in like-minded discussions, both online and on social media. Like-minded discussion is rare; personality, rather than ideology, predicts whether people engage in this form of political talk in online and offline modes. Our findings challenge the role of social media in the creation of like-minded discussion. Instead, we should look to the role of individual attributes, such as personality traits, which create a disposition that motivates the use of social media (and offline networks) to cultivate like-minded discussion.
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?
Openness to experience and extraversion correlate with greater exposure to diverse viewpoints, while introversion and conscientiousness are linked to like-minded discussions.
“Studies found that traits such as openness to experience and extraversion correlate with greater exposure to diverse viewpoints, while introversion and conscientiousness are linked to like-minded discussions [84,85].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [85]
Cites
Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003 · Cited by 1,915 · see citing works
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 · Cited by 1,260 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Boulianne, S., & Koc-Michalska, K.
- Affiliations
- MacEwan University (CA)
- Communication and Culture Department, Audencia Business School, Nantes, France
- Corresponding author
- Boulianne, Shelley
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-03-17
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 285-310
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W3137816620
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The International Journal of Press/Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Audencia Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- political talk, personality traits, online political discussion, social media, political knowledge, political opinion formation, openness to experience, extraversion, introversion, conscientiousness, ideology
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