Search

At present, the field of political psychology lacks an effective framework to conceptually organize the findings from the voluminous literature assessing whether interpersonal political interaction makes democracy better or worse. Historically, the scholarship examining various styles of interactions has remained siloed; scholars have not designed their studies to facilitate comparisons across different styles, so the accumulation of knowledge about one style often fails to influence how knowledge is accumulated about other styles. Moreover, the approaches used to study interpersonal political interaction bundle together constituent facets of discussion in a way that makes it difficult to unpack the relationship between the structural features and attitudinal outcomes of that interaction. In this review, I seek to develop a conceptual framework with two goals: (1) to encourage research design that intentionally examines why and how particular features of interpersonal interactions are linked to particular kinds of attitudinal outcomes, regardless of the style of interaction and (2) to facilitate communication between academic researchers and practitioners in order to strengthen the theory‐to‐practice pipeline for interpersonal political interaction research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most Americans are sorted into social networks that are largely politically homogeneous. A large body of political science research has explored the behavioral implications of being embedded in a politically homogeneous or heterogeneous network, but substantially less attention has been given to explaining why some people find themselves in politically homogeneous or heterogeneous social networks. In this article, we explore the psychological and physiological underpinnings of political network homogeneity. We use social network data from an original survey of 129 undergraduates paired with lab experimental evidence that measures individuals' physiological reactivity to an anticipated political discussion. Using our original survey and a separate nationally representative survey, we find suggestive evidence that individuals who are more socially anxious are more likely to share partisanship with their social network ties. Moreover, we find that individuals who experienced a greater increase in heart rate when anticipating a political discussion were more likely to be in homogeneous discussion networks, but we do not find a relationship between electrodermal activity and network homogeneity. Aversion to psychological and physiological discomfort induced by political discussions could contribute to social polarization in the American public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methodological limitations have hindered our ability to understand the conditions that make individuals seek or avoid political discussions. We introduce a methodological approach to assess communication preferences in contexts where these choices are difficult to measure. We conduct three experiments to examine how the characteristics of the people in a discussion, as well as its topic, influence an individual's "price" to participate. Participants indicated how much they would need to be compensated to participate in a short discussion about a randomly assigned topic (political or nonpolitical) under different group compositions (co-partisans, out-partisans, or a mixed group). We find that individuals demanded significantly more compensation to engage in a discussion with out-partisans than with co-partisans, for both political and non-political topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]