Growing evidence points to the corrosive influence of partisanship on society. We examine the relationship between “receptiveness to opposing views” (i.e., an individual difference in the willingness to engage with information from opposing perspectives) and the propensity to form positive and close collaborative relationships with ideologically opposed others. Across three studies varying in sampling and methodological approaches—a retrospective network study, a time-lagged field study, and an experiment—we find that individual and mutual receptiveness mitigate the negative influence of ideological opposition on relationship formation and willingness to collaborate. We find evidence that receptiveness is distinctively influential as compared to related personality characteristics (e.g., extraversion, self-monitoring, agreeableness, openness, and intellectual humility). These findings contribute to our understanding of how individual differences shape social network formation and collaboration across ideological divides.
ArceneauxK.Vander WielenR. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge University Press.
2.
AsendorpfJ. B.WilpersS. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531–1544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1531
3.
BaerM. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018761
BaronJ. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18.
6.
BlauP. M.SchwartzJ. E. (1997). Crosscutting social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
7.
BonoJ. E.ColbertA. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00633.x
8.
BowesS. M.BlanchardM. C.CostelloT. H.AbramowitzA. I.LilienfeldS. O. (2020). Intellectual humility and between-party animus: Implications for affective polarization in two community samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 103992.
9.
BowesS. M.CostelloT. H.LeeC.McElroy-HeltzelS.DavisD. E.LilienfeldS. O. (2022). Stepping outside the echo chamber: Is intellectual humility associated with less political myside bias?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(1), 150–164.
10.
BrownJ. R.CantoniE.EnosR.PonsV.SartreE. (2025). Causes and extent of increasing partisan segregation in the U.S.—Evidence from migration patterns of 212 million voters (Working Paper No. 33422). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w33422
11.
BrownJ. R.EnosR. D. (2021). The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01066-z
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
CrossR.PrusakL. (2003). The people who make organizations go—Or stop. In CrossR.PrusakL. (Ed.), Networks in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159509.003.0017
17.
CurrariniS.JacksonM. O.PinP. (2009). An economic model of friendship: Homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica, 77(4), 1003–1045.
18.
DavisM. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
19.
DayD. V.ShleicherD. J.UncklessA. L.HillerN. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.390
20.
DorisonC. A.MinsonJ. A. (2022). You can’t handle the truth! Conflict counterparts over-estimate each other’s feelings of self-threat. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 170, 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104147
EdwardsJ. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339. https://doi.org/10.5465/256782
24.
EdwardsJ. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In DrasgowF.SchmittN. (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.
25.
EdwardsJ. R.RothbardN. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2813
FangR.LandisB.ZhangZ.AndersonM. H.ShawJ. D.KilduffM. (2015). Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization Science, 26(4), 1243–1260. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0972
28.
FeilerD. C.KleinbaumA. M. (2015). Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psychological Science, 26(5), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569580
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003
31.
GidronN.AdamsJ.HorneW. (2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914123
32.
GoldbergL. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
33.
GoldbergA.SrivastavaS. B.ManianV. G.MonroeW.PottsC. (2016). Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1190–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416671873
34.
GoslingS. D.AugustineA. A.VazireS.HoltzmanN.GaddisS. (2011). Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0087
35.
Guedes-NetoJ. V. (2022). The effects of political attitudes on affective polarization: survey evidence from 165 elections. Political Studies Review, 21(1), 1–22.
HartW.AlbarracínD.EaglyA. H.BrechanI.LindbergM. J.MerrillL. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701
HusseinM. A.WheelerS. C. (2024a). Reputational costs of receptiveness: When and why being receptive to opposing political views backfires. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(6), 1425–1448. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001579
40.
HusseinM. A.WheelerS. C. (2024b). Reputational costs of receptiveness: When and why being receptive to opposing political views backfires. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(6), 1425–1448. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001579
41.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
42.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
43.
KaufmannE. (2022). Diverse and divided: A political demography of American elite students (No. 7). Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.
44.
KleinbaumA. M.JordanA. H.AudiaP. G. (2015). An altercentric perspective on the origins of brokerage in social networks: How perceived empathy moderates the self-monitoring effect. Organization Science, 26(4), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0961
45.
KossinetsG.WattsD. J. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405–450. https://doi.org/10.1086/599247
46.
KubinE.PuryearC.ScheinC.GrayK. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(6), e2008389118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118
47.
LermanA. E.SadinM. L.TrachtmanS. (2017). Policy uptake as political behavior: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act. American Political Science Review, 111(4), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000272
48.
LincolnJ. R.MillerJ. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relation networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392493
49.
LundgrenS. R.PrislinR. (1998). Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298247004
50.
MarsdenP. V. (2011). Survey methods for network data. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (Vol. 25, pp. 370–388). SAGE Publications.
51.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
52.
MehraA.KilduffM.BrassD. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667127
53.
MinsonJ. A.ChenF. S. (2022). Receptiveness to opposing views: Conceptualization and integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211061037
54.
MinsonJ. A.ChenF. S.TinsleyC. H. (2020). Why won’t you listen to me? Measuring receptiveness to opposing views. Management Science, 66(7), 3069–3094. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3362
55.
MooreM.DorisonC. A.MinsonJ. A. (2023). The contingent reputational benefits of selective exposure to partisan information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3490–3525. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001463
56.
Moore-BergS. L.Ankori-KarlinskyL.-O.HameiriB.BruneauE. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14864–14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117
57.
OhH.KilduffM. (2008). The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self-monitoring origins of network brokerage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1155
58.
PapkeL. E.WooldridgeJ. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1255(199611)11:6<619::AID-JAE418>3.0.CO;2-1
59.
PorterT.SchumannK. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139–162.
60.
QuintaneE.KleinbaumA. M. (2011). Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks. Connections, 31(1), 22–46.
61.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
62.
RobertsS. G. B.WilsonR.FedurekP.DunbarR. I. M. (2008). Individual differences and personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 954–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.033
63.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
64.
RossL.WardA. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 255–304). Academic Press.
65.
SasovovaZ.MehraA.BorgattiS. P.SchippersM. C. (2010). Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 639–670. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.639
66.
SchroederJ.KardasM.EpleyN. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1745–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617713798
67.
SeldenM.GoodieA. S. (2018). Review of the effects of Five Factor Model personality traits on network structures and perceptions of structure. Social Networks, 52, 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.05.007
68.
SgambatiT. J.AydukO. N. (2023). Intellectual humility and political polarization: An exploration of social networks, attitudes, and affect. Political Psychology, 44(4), 807–828.
69.
ShroutP. E.MogamiM.XuQ.Ghodse-ElahiY.MutterE.RiccioM. T.ValshteinT. J.BaadanV.GoudarziS. (2022). Measuring openness to political pluralism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2), 624–642.
70.
SnyderM.GangestadS. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125
71.
SrivastavaS. B.BanajiM. R. (2011). Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411399390
72.
SrivastavaS. B.GoldbergA.ManianV. G.PottsC. (2018). Enculturation trajectories: Language, cultural adaptation, and individual outcomes in organizations. Management Science, 64(3), 1348–1364. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2671
73.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
74.
StroudN. J.PeacockC.CurryA. L. (2020). The effects of mobile push notifications on news consumption and learning. Digital Journalism, 8(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1655462
WilsonK. S.BaumannH. M.MattaF. K.IliesR.KossekE. E. (2018). Misery loves company: An investigation of couples’ interrole conflict congruence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 715–737. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0395
77.
WimmerA.LewisK. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 583–642. https://doi.org/10.1086/653658
78.
YeomansM.MinsonJ.CollinsH.ChenF.GinoF. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.011
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
