Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 343–363 | Cite as

Commitment to political tolerance: Situational and activity-based differences

  • Virginia Chanley
Article

Abstract

Survey research on political tolerance has consistently found situational and activity-based differences in levels of support for the rights of political opposition. The present inquiry is based on three studies that explore these differences. These studies reveal two distinct factors related to situational and activity-based variation in tolerance. First, attitudinal tolerance tends to be less when the activity in question may affect a respondent's loved ones or home community, particularly in situations where there is relatively little consensus on whether an activity should be allowed. Second, attitudinal tolerance is less in situations where greater threat is associated with the consequences of the activity in question.

Keywords

Survey Research Great Threat Distinct Factor Political Psychology Political Opposition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gibson, James L. (1989). “The Structure of Attitudinal Tolerance in the United States.”British Journal of Political Science 19: 562–570.Google Scholar
  2. Gibson, James L. and Richard D. Bingham (1982). “On the Conceptualization and Measurement of Political Tolerance.”American Political Science Review 76: 603–620.Google Scholar
  3. Jelen, Ted G., and Clyde Wilcox (1990). “Denominational Preference and the Dimensions of Political Tolerance.”Sociological Analysis 51: 69–81.Google Scholar
  4. Kuklinski, James H., Ellen Riggle, Victor Ottati, Norbert Schwartz, and Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (1991). “The Cognitive and Affective Bases of Political Tolerance Judgments.”American Journal of Political Science 35: 1–27.Google Scholar
  5. Marcus, George E., John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, and Sandy Johnstone (Forthcoming).Experimenting with Tolerance: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments.Google Scholar
  6. McClosky, Herbert (1964). “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.”American Political Science Review 58: 361–382.Google Scholar
  7. McClosky, Herbert, and Aida Brill (1983).Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe About Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Nunn, Clyde Z., Harry J. Crockett and J. Allen Williams (1978).Tolerance for Nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Prothro, James W., and Charles M. Grigg (1960). “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement.”Journal of Politics 22: 276–294.Google Scholar
  10. Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody and Philip E. Tetlock (1991).Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, James M. Glaser, Donald Philip Green, and Michael Hout (1989). “Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public.”British Journal of Political Science 19: 25–45.Google Scholar
  12. Stouffer, Samuel A. (1963).Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith. (Original work published in 1955.)Google Scholar
  13. Sullivan, John L., John Piereson, and George E. Marcus (1979). “An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases, 1950s–1970s.”American Political Science Review 73: 781–794.Google Scholar
  14. Sullivan, John L., John Piereson and George E. Marcus (1982).Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sullivan, John L., George E. Marcus, Stanley Feldman and John Piereson (1981). “The Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis.”American Political Science Review 75: 92–106.Google Scholar
  16. Sullivan, John L., Michal Shamir, Patrick Walsh, and Nigel S. Roberts (1985).Political Tolerance in Context: Support for Unpopular Minorities in Israel, New Zealand, and the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tetlock, Philip E. (1986). “A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819–827.Google Scholar
  18. Zaller, John R. (1992).The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginia Chanley
    • 1
  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations