Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Tolerance Within Community: Does Social Capital Affect Tolerance?

  • 589 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

Tolerance is valuable in the development of any U.S. community. Individuals of varying religious beliefs, political leanings, and sexual orientations constitute communities. These differences can create unwanted divisions within the community if tolerance is not present. Examining through the framework of social capital theory, specifically civic engagement and social embeddedness, the present study seeks to understand what impacts an individual to be more tolerant of others. In the current study, tolerance is a broad measure that combines various types of individual characteristics into one dependent variable, including tolerance levels of different races, religious beliefs, and sexual orientations. Using independent measures of social capital in the form of civic engagement and social embeddedness, the study expects those individuals who have more instances of civic engagement and social embeddedness will be more tolerant of others compared to those with no or low levels of either civic engagement or social embeddedness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Two of the original categories “Less than $40,000 unspecified,” and “Over $40,000 unspecified” are included in the model and added to the modal categories that matched. “Less than 40,000 unspecified” is added to the “Less than $20,000” category, while “More than $40,000 unspecified” is added to the “Over 75,000 but less than $100,000 category”.

References

  1. Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1012–1028. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.

  2. Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by ‘civic engagement’? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253.

  3. Allison, P. (2002). Missing data: Quantitative application in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  4. Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29.

  5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

  6. Carpiano, R. M. (2006). Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for health: Can Bourdieu and sociology help? Social Science and Medicine, 62(1), 165–175.

  7. Crowley, D. (2007). Summary of youth engagement strategy. Woburn, MA: Social Capital Inc.

  8. Diller, E. (2001). Citizens in service: The challenge of delivering civic engagement training to national service programs. Corporation for National Service. Retrieved July 14, 2014. https://nationalserviceresources.org/files/r2091-citizens-in-service.pdf.

  9. Djupe, P. A., & Calfano, B. R. (2012). American Muslim investment in civil society: Political discussion, disagreement, and tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 516–528.

  10. Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 211–234.

  11. Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 159–179.

  12. Furnham, A. (1982). The protestant work ethic and attitudes towards unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55(4), 277–285.

  13. Furnham, A. (1995). The just world, charitable giving and attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 577–583.

  14. Hanna, K. S., Dale, A., & Ling, C. (2009). Social capital and quality of place: Reflections on growth and change in a small town. Local Environment, 14(1), 31–44.

  15. Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316(5831), 1622–1625.

  16. Hechter, M. (1988). Principles of group solidarity. Berkley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  17. Henderson-King, D., & Kaleta, A. (2000). Learning about social diversity: The undergraduate experience and intergroup tolerance. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 142–164.

  18. Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 39–51.

  19. Irwin, P., & Thompson, N. L. (1978). Acceptance of the rights of homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 3(2), 107–120.

  20. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). The three Cs of reducing prejudice and discrimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 239–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  21. Jones, K. S. (2006a). Giving and volunteering as distinct forms of civic engagement: The role of community integration and personal resources in formal helping. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 249–266.

  22. Jones, P. (2006b). Toleration, recognition and identity. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(2), 123–143.

  23. Jones, P. (2015). Toleration, religion and accommodation. European Journal of Philosophy, 23, 542–563.

  24. Kennedy, J. F. (1960). Letter and statements to the national conference of Christians and Jews conference, October 26, 1960. Retrieved December 15, 2014. http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/joint/app24_christiansandjews.html.

  25. Lee, F. L. F. (2014). Tolerated one way but not the other: Levels and determinants of social and political tolerance in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 711–727.

  26. Lee, Y.-K., & Chang, C.-T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 35(9), 1173–1180.

  27. Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(1), 127–151.

  28. Painter, M. A., & Paxton, P. (2014). Checkbooks in the Heartland: Change over time in voluntary association membership. Sociological Forum, 29(2), 408–428.

  29. Pearce, J. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. London/New York: Routledge.

  30. Peoples, C. D., Sigillo, A., & Green, M. (2012). Friendship and conformity in group opinions: Juror verdict change in mock juries. Sociological Spectrum, 32(2), 178–193.

  31. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

  32. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  33. Putnam, R., & Campbell, D. (2006). Research | American grace. Retrieved August 14, 2013. http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/FTHMATT.asp.

  34. Putnam, R., Light, I., de Souza Briggs, X., Rohe, W. M., Vidal, A. C., Hutchinson, J., et al. (2004). Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice: Preface. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 142–192.

  35. Rohe, W. (2004). Building social capital through community development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 158–164.

  36. Robinson, J., Witenberg, R., & Sanson, A. (2001). The socialization of tolerance: Understanding prejudice, racism, and social conflict. London: Sage.

  37. Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2014). Social heterogeneity and volunteering in U.S. Cities. Sociological Forum, 29(2), 429–452.

  38. Sander, T., & Putnam, R. D. (2009). Still bowling alone? The post-9/11 split. Journal of Democracy, 21(1), 9–16.

  39. Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238.

  40. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.

  41. Schirmer, W., Weidenstedt, L., & Reich, W. (2012). From tolerance to respect in inter-ethnic contexts. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(7), 1049–1065.

  42. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263.

  43. Snowden, L. R. (2001). Social embeddedness and psychological well-being among African Americans and Whites. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 519–536.

  44. Son, J., & Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteer work and hedonic, eudemonic, and social well-being: Volunteer work and well-being. Sociological Forum, 27(3), 658–681.

  45. Stroope, S. (2012). Social networks and religion: The role of congregational social embeddedness in religious belief and practice. Sociology of Religion, 73(3), 273–298.

  46. van der Ree, G. (2014). Saving the discipline: Plurality, social capital, and the sociology of IR theorizing. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 218–233.

  47. Vogt, W. P. (1997). Tolerance & education: Learning to live with diversity and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  48. Walters, W. (2002). Social capital and political sociology: Re-imagining politics? Sociology, 36(2), 377–397.

  49. Weithman, P. (2004). T. M. Scanlon, The difficulty of tolerance. Ethics, 114(4), 836–842.

  50. Wenger, G. C., Dystra, P. A., Knipscheer, K., & Melkas, T. (2007). Social embeddedness and late-life parenthood community activity, close ties, and support networks. Journal of Family Issues, 28(11), 1419–1456.

  51. Whitley, B., & Kite, M. (2009). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

  52. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.

  53. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.

  54. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1998). The contribution of social resources to volunteering. Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 799–814.

  55. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141–168.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jasmine Wise.

Appendices

Appendix 1

For further reference, Appendix 1, Table 5 shows the analysis of each independent variable inserted into the model separately. Each measure is significant and shows an increase in tolerance.

Table 5 Individual social capital measures effects on tolerance

Appendix 2

To ensure all four independent variables measure different aspects of social capital a correlation matrix as well as a factor analysis. The factor analysis yields a Cronbach alpha score of 0.54. This supports the need for each variable individually within the models. The correlation matrix shows that while each correlation is significant each is below 0.5, signifying the weakness of the correlation and further supporting the need for each variable separated (Tables 6, 7).

Table 6 Cronbach coefficient alpha of independent variables
Table 7 Correlation matrix of independent variables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wise, J., Driskell, R. Tolerance Within Community: Does Social Capital Affect Tolerance?. Soc Indic Res 134, 607–629 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1449-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Tolerance
  • Community
  • Social capital
  • Civic engagement
  • Social embeddedness