Chapter 1 opens with a narrative detailing the countless ways in which we interact with others about politics on a daily basis. We illustrate that previous research on the topic has left several assumptions untested, such as that individuals feel “upset” or “anxious” when faced with political disagreement, that social harmony can affect our political discussion behavior, and that the decision to engage in or avoid a discussion is an active choice. The goal of this chapter is to summarize the book’s key contributions, persuade readers of its importance, and preview the remaining chapters.

In Chapter 2, we outline the theoretical core of our inquiry. To fully understand the experience of political discussion, we must think more broadly about the full set of considerations that structure people’s decisions. We introduce the concept of the 4D Framework to the process of political discussion, articulating what happens at each of four stages preceding, during, and after the opportunity to discuss politics. The stages include Detection, Decision, Discussion, and Determination. Individuals make choices at each stage of the cycle as a result of their unique individual dispositions and the social context, both of which contribute to unique motivations. To rigorously examine the motivations behind political discussion preferences, we develop the AAA Typology, which characterizes motivations as accuracy, affiliation, and affirmation. We argue that in contrast to previous research emphasizing instrumental goals in political discussion (i.e. to learn more information, an accuracy goal), most individuals are driven to preserve their self-esteem (affirmation) and the social ties with their potential discussants (affiliation).

In Chapter 10, we assess the broader consequences for the health of our democracy on the process of political discussion in contemporary America. We suggest that this process – while certainly not responsible for psychological forms of polarization among the mass public – certainly contributes to its perpetuation by decreasing the likelihood that Americans engage in meaningful exchange with others whose viewpoints disagree. On the one hand, it may be preferable that Americans seem to prioritize protecting their relationships, stretching the social fabric across the political divide. But there are reasons to be concerned that this process exacerbates stereotyped thinking. It appears that Americans don’t want to follow with the prescription of previous researchers who suggest that our ailments can be remedied if only we talk with knowledgeable others.