Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 585–606 | Cite as

Does Tolerance of Religion in the Public Space Depend on the Salience of the Manifestation of Religious Group Membership?

  • Lene AarøeEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The question of the role of Islam in the public space has become a new pivotal point in political disputes about civil liberties in Western Europe. This debate challenges the scholarly literature on tolerance by highlighting that our understanding of the situational factors shaping tolerance judgments remains limited. This study therefore investigates how the salience of the signaling of religious group membership influences religious tolerance. Based on a unique question-wording experiment embedded in an approximately nationally representative survey, I demonstrate that conspicuous manifestations of religious outgroup membership spark stronger intolerance than subtle manifestations and that anxiety mediates the effect of conspicuous manifestations of religious outgroup membership. Finally, I demonstrate that the effect of the salience of religious outgroup membership is strongest among those who are highly opposed to secularism. I conclude by discussing how these findings constitute an important extension of the extant work on tolerance and feed back into the discussion regarding the role of religion in the public space.

Keywords

Tolerance Contextual factors Group cues Religion Signaling of outgroup membership Muslim Christian 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Stanley Feldman, Christoffer Green-Petersen, Leonie Huddy, Michael Bang Petersen, Rune Slothuus, Paul Sniderman, Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, the anonymous reviewers and participants in the Research Section on Danish Politics, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, for helpful advice. I acknowledge support from the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, L. (2006). Freedom of religion and religious symbols in the public sphere. Canada: Parliamentary Information and Research Service.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, J. R. (2007). Why the French don’t like headscarves. Islam, the state and public space. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Negative affect, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction, Rutgers series on self and social identity (Vol. 3, pp. 17–41). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coene, G., & Longman, C. (2008). Gendering the diversification of diversity. The Belgian hijab (in) question. Ethnicities, 8, 302–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenstein, M. A. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between religion and political tolerance in the US. Political Behavior, 28, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Factsheet Denmark. (2009). Denmarkan overview. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. April 2009, pp. 20. http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/9447/pdf/denmark_an__overview.pdf.
  13. Fetzer, J. S., & Soper, J. C. (2005). Muslims and the state in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2000). Social identities and political intolerance: Linkages within the South African mass public. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2001). Making tolerance judgments: The effects of context, local and national. Journal of Politics, 63, 1067–1090.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2003). Overcoming intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63, 520–543.Google Scholar
  20. Herson, L. J. R., & Hofstetter, C. R. (1975). Tolerance, consensus, and the democratic creed. A contextual exploration. Journal of Politics, 37, 1007–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huddy, L. (2003). Group identity and political cohesion. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 511–558). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals shape policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jespersen, K. J. V. (2004). A history of Denmark. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J. (2005). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis: A refresher and some practical advice. The University of Michigan Press, (submitted).Google Scholar
  25. Kettell, S. (2009). On the public discourse of religion: An analysis of Christianity in the United Kingdom. Politics and Religion, 2, 420–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, M. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Layman, G. C. (1997). Religion and political behavior in the United States. The impact of beliefs, affiliations and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 288–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Layman, G. C., & Green, J. C. (2005). Wars and rumours of wars: The contexts of cultural conflict in American political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McClosky, H., & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Modood, T. (1994). Establishment, multiculturalism and British citizenship. The Political Quarterly, 65(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mondak, J. J., & Hurwitz, J. (1998). Values, acts, and actors. Distinguishing generic and discriminatory intolerance. Political Behavior, 20(4), 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mouritsen, P. (2006). The particular Universalism of a Nordic Civic nation. Common values, state religion and Islam in Danish political culture. In T. Modood, A. Triandafyllidou, & R. Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism, muslims and citizenship: A European approach (pp. 70–93). London: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peffley, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multi-level model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.Google Scholar
  37. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2011). Freedom for all? The strength and limits of political tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rohrschneider, R. (1996). Institutional learning versus value diffusion: The evolution of democratic values among parliamentarians in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 422–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saharso, S., & Lettinga, D. (2008). Contentious citizenship: Policies and debates on the veil in the Netherlands. Social Politics (Special issue: The Veil: Debating Citizenship, Gender and Religious Diversity), 15(4), 455–480.Google Scholar
  40. Shamir, M., & Sagiv-Schifter, T. (2006). Conflict, identity, and tolerance: Israel in the Al-Aqsa intifada. Political Psychology, 27(4), 569–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siim, B., & Skjeie, H. (2008). Tracks, intersections and dead ends: State feminism and multicultural retreats in Denmark and Norway. Ethnicities, 8(3), 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sniderman, P. M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). When ways of life collide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sniderman, P. M., Peri, P., de Figueiredo, R. J. P., Jr., & Piazza, T. (2000). The outsider: Prejudice and politics in Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. (1993). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sniderman, P. M., Tetlock, P. E., Glaser, J. M., Green, D. P., & Hout, M. (1989). Principled tolerance and the American mass public. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sosis, R., & Alcorta, C. (2003). Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and commune longevity: A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations. International social psychological perspectives (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  52. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2001). Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results, June 1, 2001. Working paper located at http://gking.harvard.edu/clarify/clarify.pdf.
  53. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 259–277). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Weldon, S. A. (2006). The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wuthnow, R. (1988). Divided we fall: America’s two civil religions. Christian Century, 105, 395–399.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and GovernmentAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations