In polarized contexts, having informal political conversations with people holding different views can be difficult and socially costly. This difficulty often leads to a reduction in dialogue across political divides, which can further exacerbate polarization dynamics and undermine democratic functioning. Understanding the malleable factors that influence engagement in cross-cutting political conversations is therefore crucial. This article examines whether distinct personal motivations and perceptions of social norms are linked to an increased likelihood of informal political conversations with people holding contrasting political views. The study is based on personal network interviews with a diverse sample of 70 individuals living in the highly polarized context of Catalonia, Spain. The data contains detailed information about participants’ political attitudes and a selection of their social contacts, about whom participants also reported many relevant characteristics, including their (perceived) political positions and frequency of political conversations. Focusing exclusively on the subsample of social contacts perceived to hold contrasting political opinions, we tested whether perceptions of the strength of a social norm prescribing inclusive dialogue and various personal motivations to engage in cross-talk are associated with a higher observed likelihood of regular cross-talk interactions. The results indicate that the desire to persuade others is the most consistent driver of cross-talk, except for the contentious topic of Catalan independence. For this controversial discussion topic, the perceived descriptive strength of the inclusive dialogue norm within the personal environment becomes crucial for the maintenance of cross-cutting conversations.
