Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 495–515 | Cite as

Cross-Cutting Messages and Political Tolerance: An Experiment Using Evangelical Protestants

  • Carin RobinsonEmail author
Original Paper


Democratic theorists believe that exposure to rationales for conflicting views augments deliberation and tolerance. Evidence suggests that people are more tolerant of opposing groups after being exposed to alternative points of view, yet it is unclear how source credibility and previous exposure to the source moderates this effect. Using experimental survey data from a sample of evangelical Protestant PAC donors, I manipulate Christian Right activists’ exposure to dissonant messages on immigration reform and capital punishment and vary the source of these messages. I find that when the opposing viewpoints are attributed to a religious leader generally found outside the Christian Right social movement (a mainline Protestant), evangelicals are less tolerant than when attributed to a religious leader sometimes found within the movement (a Catholic). Moreover, I find the amount of contact with the respective religious group moderates source effects. In this way, the study reveals how social networks may moderate the effect of elite discourse on public opinion.


Political tolerance Deliberation Source credibility Social networks Religion 



I thank Paul A. Djupe, Kimberly A. Gross, Jonathan McDonald Ladd, Clyde Wilcox and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, IL.


  1. Ackerman, B. A., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 245–308). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, H. (1961/1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought (Enl. ed.). New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barabas, J. (2004). How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review, 98, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty, K. M., & Walter, O. (1984). Religious preference and practice: Reevaluating their impact on political tolerance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bendyna, M. E., Green, J. C., Rozell, M. J., & Wilcox, C. (2001a). Uneasy alliance: Conservative Catholics and the Christian Right. Sociology of Religion, 62, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bendyna, M. E., Green, J. C., Rozell, M. J., & Wilcox, C. (2001b). Catholics and the Christian Right: A view from four states. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. E., & Robinson, C. (2007). Religious coalitions for and against gay marriage: The culture war rages on. In C. Rimmerman & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The politics of same-sex marriage (pp. 131–154). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Djupe, P. A., & Neiheisel, J. R. (2008). Clergy deliberation on gay rights and homosexuality. Polity, 40, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djupe, P. A., Sokhey, A. E., & Calfano B. R. (2008). Religious authority, social priming, and support for civil liberties. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame. Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenstein, M. E. (2008). Religion and the politics of tolerance: How Christianity builds democracy. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Farrar, C., Fishkin, J., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C., & Paluck, E. L. (2010). Disaggregating deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a Deliberative Poll. British Journal of Political Science.
  19. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Have, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. George, T. (1994). Catholics and evangelicals in the trenches. Christianity Today, May 16.Google Scholar
  21. Goodstein, L. (2005). Schiavo case highlights an alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals. The New York Times, March 24, A20.Google Scholar
  22. Green, J. C., Conger, K. H., & Guth, J. L. (2007). Agents of value: Christian Right activists in 2004. In J. C. Green, M. J. Rozell, & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The values campaign? The Christian Right and the 2004 elections (pp. 22–55). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Herberg, W. (1955/1983). ProtestantCatholicJew: An essay in American Religious Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). New that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2006). The limits of deliberative discussion: A model of everyday political arguments. The Journal of Politics, 68, 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J., Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kuklinski, J. H., Riggle, E., Ottati, V., Schwartz, N., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1991). The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgments. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leege, D. C., & Kellstedt, L. A. (Eds.). (1993). Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  32. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McClurg, S. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendelberg, T. (2002). The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, 6, 151–193.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295–309.Google Scholar
  36. Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior, 12, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Noll, M., & Nystrom, C. (2005). Is the reformation over? An evangelical assessment of Catholicism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.Google Scholar
  41. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skyte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reich, C., & Purbhoo, M. (1975). The effects of cross-cultural contact. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 7, 313–327.Google Scholar
  47. Reimer, S., & Park, J. Z. (2001). Tolerant (In)civility? A longitudinal analysis of white conservative Protestants’ willingness to grant civil liberties. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 735–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Risen, J. L., & Thomas, J. (1998). Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War. New York: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Robinson, C. (2008). Doctrine, discussion and disagreement: Evangelical Protestants and Catholics in American politics. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  50. Ruby, R., & Pond, A. (2007). An enduring majority: Americans continue to support the death penalty, December 19. Accessed 3 June 2009.
  51. Shea, W. M. (2004). The lion and the lamb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smidt, C. E., Kellstedt, L. A., & Guth, J. L. (2008). The role of religion in American politics: Explanatory theories and associated analytical and measurement issues. In C. E. Smidt, J. A. Guth, & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Oxford handbook on religion and American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, G. A. (2006). Attitudes toward immigration: In the pulpit and the pew, April 26. Accessed 22 August 2007.
  54. Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  55. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, New York: Published in cooperation with European Association of Experimental Social Psychology by Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Wilcox, C., & Jelen, T. (1990). Evangelicals and political tolerance. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilcox, C., & Robinson, C. (2011). Onward Christian soldiers? The Christian Right in American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wilcox, C., Rozell, M. J., & Gunn, R. (1996). Religious coalitions in the new Christian Right. Social Science Quarterly, 77(3), 543–558.Google Scholar
  60. Wuthnow, R. (1990). The restructuring of American religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Hood CollegeFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations