The Problem of Dialogue

18 - The Problem of Dialogue

What Psychology Can Tell Us about Why It’s So Hard to Agree to Disagree about Politics

from Part V - Communications, Dialogue, and Their Breakdown

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2026

Edited by

Séamus A. Power and

Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Cornell University
Séamus A. Power: Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Fathali M. Moghaddam: Affiliation:
Georgetown University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter examines political disagreement as a serious everyday problem, exploring why we struggle to engage with those who think differently about politics. Taking an identity-centered psychological approach, the chapter examines how political positions become tied to our sense of self, transforming policy disagreements into perceived threats. Drawing on research on social identity, motivated reasoning, and meta-perceptions, I explore how these processes create vicious cycles of avoidance in ordinary conversations – at family dinners, in workplaces, and across social media. The chapter then turns to evidence-based interventions, arguing that the solution lies not in eliminating disagreement but in building skills for productive dialogue, from conversational receptiveness to epistemic humility, alongside educational and institutional approaches that can cultivate democratic curiosity.

Keywords

polarization social identity motivated reasoning dialogue meta-perceptions humility curiosity

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Psychology of Serious Everyday World Problems , pp. 433 - 454
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009886338 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Amsalem, E., & Nir, L. (2021). Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 48(5), 619–641.Google Scholar

Amsalem, E., Merkley, E., & Loewen, P. J. (2022). Does talking to the other side reduce inter-party hostility? Evidence from three studies. Political Communication, 39(1), 61–78.Google Scholar

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W. et al. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221.Google Scholar

Bor, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2022). The psychology of online political hostility: A comprehensive, cross-national test of the mismatch hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 116(1), 1–18.10.1177/0093650219866357CrossRef Google Scholar

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2024). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(2), 557–565.10.1080/10584609.2021.1955056CrossRef Google Scholar

Braghieri, L., Schwardmann, P., & Tripodi, E. (2024). DP19753 Talking across the Aisle. CEPR Discussion Paper, (19753).10.1073/pnas.1804840115CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content, 77, 35–58.10.1017/S0003055421000885CrossRef Google Scholar

Breakwell, G. M. (2015). Coping with threatened identities. Psychology Press.10.1162/rest_a_01160CrossRef Google Scholar

Bromme, L., Rothmund, T., & Azevedo, F. (2022). Mapping political trust and involvement in the personality space – A meta‐analysis and new evidence. Journal of Personality, 90(6), 846–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12700.Google Scholar

Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of “perspective-giving” in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855–866.Google Scholar

Boulianne, S., & Galipeau, T. (2024). Personality, networks, and heterogeneous discussion on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 22(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2024.2340624.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boulianne, S., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2022). The role of personality in political talk and like-minded discussion. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/194016122199409 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2022). What goes without saying. Cambridge University Press.10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017CrossRef Google Scholar

Carriere, K. R., Hallenbeck, G., Sullivan, D., & Ghion, R. (2024). You are not like the rest of them: disrupting meta-perceptions dilutes dehumanization. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 2, 1369709. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2024.1369709.Google Scholar

Chen, M. K., & Rohla, R. (2018). The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science, 360(6392), 1020–1024.10.1177/1940161221994096CrossRef Google Scholar

Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J. et al. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273–291.10.1017/9781108912495CrossRef Google Scholar

De Jong, J. F. (2024). Cross-partisan discussions reduced political polarization between UK voters, but less so when they disagreed. Communications Psychology, 2(1), 5.10.3389/frsps.2024.1369709CrossRef Google Scholar

Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2005). Peering into the bias blind spot: People’s assessments of bias in themselves and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 680–692.10.1126/science.aaq1433CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

English, A., & Mahendran, K. (2025). Introducing a novel method to support polarized citizens to sustain political dialogue. Political Psychology, 1–21.10.1177/1745691617746796CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eschert, S., & Simon, B. (2019). Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments? PLoS One, 14(3), e0211556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211556.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fang, X., Heuser, S., & Stötzer, L. S. (2023). How In-Person Conversations Shape Political Polarization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Initiative. ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series, Article 270. https://ideas .repec .org/ /p /ajk /ajkdps /270 .html.10.1177/0146167204271570CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24(6), 939–946.Google Scholar

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.Google Scholar

Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723.10.1177/0956797612464058CrossRef Google Scholar

Hibbing, M. V., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. R. (2011). Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior, 33(4), 601–624.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Israel, T. (2020). Beyond your bubble: How to connect across the political divide. American Psychological Association.10.1177/0093650211416646CrossRef Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.10.1007/s11109-010-9147-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, Y., Hsu, S. H., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516.10.1017/S0003055414000604CrossRef Google Scholar

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.Google Scholar

Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). (Mis) perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391.10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRef Google Scholar

Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286.10.1111/jcom.12034CrossRef Google Scholar

Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2021). Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Philosophical Topics, 49(1), 133–152.10.1073/pnas.2008389118CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta‐analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168.10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin.10.1093/poq/nfv045CrossRef Google Scholar

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098.10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020). How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1102–1109.Google Scholar

Mackey, C. D., & Rios, K. (2023). Identity centrality, social identity threat, and differences in concealment between religious minorities and nonreligious individuals. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 33(1), 52–68.10.1002/ejsp.2079CrossRef Google Scholar

Markowski, K. L., & Roxburgh, S. (2019). If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me: Anticipated vegan stigma and its relationship to veganism. Appetite, 135, 1–9.Google Scholar

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098CrossRef Google Scholar

Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imagination. Oxford University Press.10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N., & Willer, R. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(16), e2116851119.10.1080/10508619.2022.2064110CrossRef Google Scholar

Moghaddam, F. M. (2024). The psychology of multiculturalism, assimilation, and omniculturalism. Springer Nature.10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040CrossRef Google Scholar

Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335–362.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929023.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions as obstacles to peace in intergroup conflicts. PNAS, 117(26), 14812–14817.10.1073/pnas.2116851119CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Muradova, L., & Arceneaux, K. (2022). Reflective political reasoning: Political disagreement and empathy. European Journal of Political Research, 61(3), 740–761.10.1007/978-3-031-62597-8CrossRef Google Scholar

Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.10.1017/S0007123408000173CrossRef Google Scholar

Obradović, S. (2016). Don’t forget to remember: Collective memory of the Yugoslav wars in present-day Serbia. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(1), 12.10.1017/CBO9780511761515CrossRef Google Scholar

Obradović, S., Power, S. A., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2020). Understanding the psychological appeal of populism. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 125–131.Google Scholar

Obradović, S., & Draper, H. (2022). Dialogue with difference: Meta-representations in political dialogue and their role in constructing the “other.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(1), 218–235.10.1111/1475-6765.12490CrossRef Google Scholar

Obradović, S., Martinez, N., Dhanda, N. et al. (2025). Mourning and orienting to the future in a liminal occasion: (Re) defining British national identity after Queen Elizabeth II’s death. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), e12807.10.1017/S0003055402004264CrossRef Google Scholar

Obradović, S. (2026). Towards democratic curiosity: On the role of political disagreement in political dialogue. In K. Carriere, (ed.). International handbook on cultural political psychology. Springer Nature.10.1037/pac0000144CrossRef Google Scholar

Pessoa, L. (2013). The cognitive-emotional brain: From interactions to integration. MIT Press.10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.009CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pettigrew T., F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.10.5964/jspp.7529CrossRef Google Scholar

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.10.1111/bjso.12807CrossRef Google Scholar

Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 37–43.10.1007/978-3-032-26797-9_6CrossRef Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019569.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297–340). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Rossini, P. (2022). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research, 49(3), 399–425.Google Scholar

Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562.10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rossiter, E. L., & Carlson, T. N. (2024). Cross-partisan conversation reduced affective polarization for republicans and democrats even after the contentious 2020 election. The Journal of Politics, 86(4), 1608–1612.10.1177/0146167202286008CrossRef Google Scholar

Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science advances, 8(25), eabn5515.Google Scholar

Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sintemaartensdijk, N. (2009). Suffering from the possibility of status loss: Physiological responses to social identity threat in high status groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1075–1092.10.1177/0093650220921314CrossRef Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A. (2020, November 7). The fate(s) of moral absolutes in history: Pluralistic versus developmental visions of how to understand cross-cultural differences in moral judgment [Keynote address]. Annual Meeting of the Cultural Psychology Division of the Chinese Psychological Society.10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Settle, J. E., & Carlson, T. N. (2019). Opting out of political discussions. Political Communication, 36(3), 476–496.10.1086/729931CrossRef Google Scholar

Simonovits, G., Kezdi, G., & Kardos, P. (2018). Seeing the world through the other’s eye: An online intervention reducing ethnic prejudice. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 186–193.10.1126/sciadv.abn5515CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267–281.10.1002/ejsp.609CrossRef Google Scholar

Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2019). Personalities discussing politics: The effects of agreement and expertise on discussion frequency and the moderating role of personality traits. International Journal of Communication, 12, 92–115.Google Scholar

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Zanna, M.P. (ed,) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press.10.1080/10584609.2018.1561563CrossRef Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Niu, W. (eds.). (2025). Critical thinking across disciplines, vol. 1: Theory and classroom practice. Springer Nature.10.1017/S0003055417000478CrossRef Google Scholar

Sun, K. Q., & Slepian, M. L. (2020). The conversations we seek to avoid. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 87–105.10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Sutherland, J. A. (2010). Mothering, guilt and shame. Sociology Compass, 4(5), 310–321.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel, S., & Austin, W. G. (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost, J. T. & Sidanius, J. (eds.), Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Valli, C., & Nai, A. (2023). Dispositioned to resist? The big five and resistance to dissonant political views. Personality and Individual Differences, 207, 112152.10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Velez, G., & Power, S. A. (2020). Teaching students how to think, not what to think: Pedagogy and political psychology. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(1), 388–403.10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00283.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Velez, G. M., & Power, S. A. (2024). Manywheres: In pursuit of social justice in developmental science. Human Development, 68(2), 61–76.Google Scholar

Voelkel, J. G., Chu, J., Stagnaro, M. N., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Pink, S. L., … & Willer, R. (2023). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), 55–64.10.4324/9780203505984-16CrossRef Google Scholar

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.10.1016/j.paid.2023.112152CrossRef Google Scholar

Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148.10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1284CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.