Tolerance Within Community: Does Social Capital Affect Tolerance?

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, access via your institution.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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