This dissertation explores how political disagreement and disagreeable information shape the nature and quality of citizens' political judgments. People encounter disagreeable information on a routine basis, yet little is known about how exposure to this kind of information shapes people's political decision-making. I examine if and when exposure to political disagreement and disagreeable information leads people to make open-minded, accurate political judgments rather than closed minded, biased decisions. Using a series of experiments, I demonstrate that exposure to high levels of political disagreement can shape how people make judgments, and that, at times, it leads people to be more open-minded and accurate in their approach to decision-making. This research has important implications for understanding how inherent features of the democratic process shape the quality of citizens' judgments.