["Political Psychology, EarlyView. ", "\nAbstract\nThis article offers a novel quasi‐experimental method over two studies for exploring how individuals can navigate politically polarizing discussions to sustain dialogue. Study one (N = 28) involved in‐person, stimulus‐led interviews in England and Scotland to understand the dialogical political positions being adopted on the UK's post‐Brexit European relationships. Study two (N = 10) created quasi‐experimental participant pairings on shared political positions before introducing a researcher‐led polarizing rupture to explore how individuals navigate challenging political discussions. These positions and projected polarizing issues are understood via a dialogue sustainment theoretical model, which focuses on: (1) Internalized—social representations of the political issues, (2) Interactive—the political positions adopted during discourse, and (3) Dimensional—the temporal/spatial focus of the interaction. Results show a triad of influences determine how pairs independently sustained dialogue: (1) Shared core positions in the first stages of discourse, (2) Shared‐affective responses to the polarizing issue, and (3) Adopted “distancing” positions to navigate the vexed issue and sustain dialogue. This article considers the implications of this alternative method as a first step for political psychologists in exploring dialogue sustainment in politically polarizing contexts.\n"]