The VIF is approximately 1. Second, we compare the models reported in Table 6 with models where we set all as well as combinations of outcome variables on tolerance to be equal see Marsh et al. This enables a test of Chi squared difference between models. In no case is the more restricted model better than the less restricted model i.
To provide a descriptive overview of tolerance in Sweden, we regress a number of demographic variables on these three tolerance constructs.
For ease of interpretation, we use manifest tolerance scores instead of factor scores. Values to range from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest level of each aspect of tolerance. In Table 7 , we report the relationships among tolerance and sex, age group, nativity, education level, civil status, subjective income and the Big Five personality traits.
Results indicate no association between sex, nativity, or subjective income. Younger people express greater acceptance of, respect for, and appreciation for difference than those over 65 years old. Married and cohabitating partners articulate less acceptance than those who are single, but there are no differences in terms of respect and appreciation. Education matters for respect and appreciation but not for acceptance. In terms of personality, results show relationships among agreeableness and openness and all three dimensions of tolerance.
Conscientiousness and neuroticism are weakly associated with one dimension. Extraversion is unrelated to tolerance. Comparing these results to findings from the literature on prejudice, important differences emerge. Research on prejudice tends to show that women are less prejudiced than men; the elderly are more prejudiced than those who are younger; income is negatively associated with prejudice; and immigrants are much less prejudiced towards other immigrants.
Moreover, research consistently demonstrates that higher education is inversely related to prejudice. The results reported in Table 7 deviate from this pattern in that there is no sex difference nor any differences due to income or nativity. This provides further evidence that, although tolerance is related to prejudice, it is a distinct phenomenon. The relationships we find among tolerance and the Big Five personality traits are consistent with some studies of prejudice e. In this article, we advance the study of tolerance by designing research to overcome both the theoretical and empirical conflation of prejudice and tolerance.
There are two main theoretical approaches to tolerance. In the first, dislike of an out-group is a prerequisite for tolerance, meaning that one cannot be tolerant without having first been prejudiced. The implication of this conceptualization is that intolerance is also an indicator of prejudice, making it impossible to analytically—let alone empirically—separate the two constructs. According to the second theoretical tradition, tolerance is a phenomenon distinct from prejudice.
Nevertheless, previous empirical research from this tradition incorporates prejudice into the measurement of tolerance by using questions that gauge attitudes towards specific out-groups. Our goal was to overcome these limitations by developing a theoretically driven, multidimensional conception of tolerance that can also be operationalized and measured in a way that is distinct from prejudice or any other concept.
Therefore, we began with a definition of tolerance that is analytically distinct from prejudice. We define tolerance as a value orientation towards difference. Based on previous theoretical work, we identified three expressions of tolerance: acceptance of, respect for, and appreciation of diversity. Next, we developed measures consistent with this conceptualization. Our measures are temporally and politically neutral, which are essential for analyses over time and geography.
With these efforts, we overcome additional limitations of previous research. We administered two surveys, first in a single country Sweden and then cross-nationally in five countries Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results from confirmatory factor analysis demonstrate that the three-factor model has good fit.
Based on results from multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, we conclude that respondents across countries understand tolerance similarly. This means that these items can be used to examine tolerance, including its determinants or consequences, both within and across countries. Further, we demonstrated convergent validity by examining the relationship among tolerance and various measures of prejudice.
We also found discriminant validity in relation to welfare attitudes. Relationships among types of tolerance and demographic variables lend credence to our claim that, although tolerance is correlated with prejudice, it is a distinct phenomenon that can, and should, be operationalized as such.
Our results suggest that only an appreciation of difference has the potential to reduce prejudice, but we do not know how tolerance is related to other individual-level or societal-level outcomes.
Thus, we do not argue that individuals and societies should strive to appreciate all forms of difference. Future research should examine the extent to which these aspects of tolerance affect behavior—political and mundane.
Research should also study the societal-level consequences of different aspects of tolerance. Despite our contribution, we must acknowledge several limitations to our study. Second, our empirical studies rely on cross-sectional data. Therefore, we do not know how stable our measures of tolerance are over time. Third, we have not examined our items in relation to earlier attempts at measuring tolerance, including political tolerance.
This was beyond the scope of this paper, but something that future research should address. Finally, we want to reiterate that our goal is not to make moral judgments about tolerance. The purpose of this research was to develop new measures that are consistent with an abstract, analytically distinct conceptualization of tolerance.
Thus, we do not claim that tolerance is something inherently good or bad. The consequences of tolerance—different expressions and levels—remain empirical questions. As stated at the outset of this research, we believe there is an important practical reason to clarify the meaning and measurement of tolerance, as it is often invoked as something important for individuals and societies to develop and demonstrate. Yet without a clear understanding of tolerance, these imperatives are hollow.
How much acceptance of, respect for, or appreciation of difference is necessary to reduce discrimination, violence, or other social problems that may undermine the functioning of democratic societies? We do not claim to have these answers, but by developing tools to study tolerance, this research moves us in the direction of being able to address these types of questions. Indeed, the analytical and methodological approach developed in this article makes this type of empirical research possible.
Although we acknowledge the relevance of tolerance for democratic societies, we make no moral arguments in this article. We do not claim that tolerance is something inherently positive or always good for society. Rawls also argues that just societies, when threatened, may prioritize self-preservation over tolerance for the intolerant.
Tolerance is also recurrent in research on prejudice, especially in analyses of attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities. Here the use of tolerance is not necessarily theoretical, and intolerance and prejudice are generally regarded as equivalents. For example, Togeby uses tolerance interchangeably with broadminded views and absence of ethnocentrism, making an empirical distinction between positive attitudes towards immigrants coming to the country prejudice and positive attitudes towards immigrants already living in the country tolerance.
Other prejudice scholars conceive of tolerance constituting positive attitudes toward immigrants as well as by an abstract ideological belief in and endorsement of equality Van Zalk et al. The item most explicitly tied to tolerance captures views on laws against promoting racial or ethnic hatred, with more positive attitudes indicating greater tolerance.
Others researchers, however, explicitly describe tolerance as the absence of prejudice. We call tolerance a value instead of an attitude because it is not a positive or negative evaluation of a specific object Eagly and Chaiken The slight underrepresentation of the highly educated differs from other surveys like the ESS where those with less education often are underrepresented. It is possible that this difference is due to survey mode or measurement of education level, which are not always perfectly comparable in cross-national designs.
There are various rules of thumbs accounting for the magnitude of factor loadings. Hair et al. Meanwhile, Tabachnick and Fidell suggest a very precise cut-off ranging from 0.
They also claim that the average variance extracted AVE should be 0. So, even though items Ac3 and Ap1 contribute somewhat less to the latent factors we retain them in the model. Allport, G. The nature of prejudice. Garden City: Anchor Books. Google Scholar. Balint, P. Avoiding an intolerant society: Why respect of difference may not be the best approach.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42 1 , — Bergkvist, L. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 2 , — Article Google Scholar. Billiet, J. Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items.
Bobo, L. Education and political tolerance testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53 3 , — Bohman, A. In the wake of radical right electoral success: A cross-country comparative study of anti-immigration attitudes over time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42 11 , — Chen, F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Chong, D. Tolerance and social adjustment to new norms and practices.
Political Behavior, 16 1 , 21— Craig, M. More diverse yet less tolerant? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 6 , — Crepaz, M. Constructing tolerance how the welfare state shapes attitudes about immigrants.
Comparative Political Studies, 42 3 , — Davis, D. Exploring black political intolerance. Political Behavior, 17 1 , 1— Dunn, K. Legislative diversity and social tolerance: How multiparty systems lead to tolerant citizens. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19 3 , — The surprising non-impact of radical right-wing populist party representation on public tolerance of minorities.
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21 3 , — Eagly, A. Attitude structure and function. Gilbert, S. Lindzey Eds. New York: Oxford University Press. Eger, M. Immigration and the welfare state: A cross-regional analysis of European welfare attitudes.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 58 5 , — Ekehammar, B. The relation between personality and prejudice. A variable- and person-centered approach. European Journal of Personality, 17 6 , — Evans, G.
In search of tolerance. Park, J. Curtice, K. Thomson, L. Bromley Eds. London: Sage. Ferrar, J. The dimensions of tolerance. The Pacific Sociological Review, 19 1 , 63— Forst, R. Toleration in conflict. Past and present , C. Cronin trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zalta Ed. Gibson, J. Alternative measures of political tolerance: Must tolerance be least-liked?
American Journal of Political Science, 36 2 , — A sober second thought: An experiment in persuading Russians to tolerate. American Journal of Political Science, 42 3 , — Perspectives on Politics, 4 1 , 21— On the conceptualization and measurement of political tolerance. American Political Science Review, 76 3 , — Glick, P. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, — Hainmueller, J. Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61 2 , — Hair, J. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 2 , — Multivariate data analysis. New York: Pearson. Hayduk, L. Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? Heen, M. A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples.
CCJP Henrich, J. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 2—3 , 61— Kirchner, A. Crafting tolerance: The role of political institutions in a comparative perspective. European Political Science Review, 3 2 , — Kuklinski, J.
The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgments. American Journal of Political Science, 35 1 , 1— Marsh, H. Why multicollinearity matters: A reexamination of relations between self-efficacy, self-concept, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 3 , — McClendon, M. Acquiescence and recency response-order effects in interview surveys. Sociological Methods and Research, 20, 60— Miklikowska, M.
Like parent, like child? Development of prejudice and tolerance towards immigrants. British Journal of Psychology, 1 , 95— Mondak, J. The complexity of tolerance and intolerance judgments: A response to Gibson. Political Behavior, 27 4 , — Norris, P. Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Persell, C. Civil society, economic distress, and social tolerance.
Sociological Forum, 16 2 , — Pettigrew, T. Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. However, tolerance is possible only if we reduce moralization on every point of difference. When behaviors such as eating meat, cigarette smoking, premarital sex or religious schooling become moralized, they elicit powerful moral emotions, institutional action against the behavior, and even censure or condemnation from others.
Moralization is, therefore, a barrier to tolerance because perceived immorality defines the boundaries of what can be tolerated. Since people consider matters of morality as objective, absolute and beyond compromise, attaching strong moral significance to every point of disagreement and difference makes tolerance almost impossible.
Instead, it takes, for example, intellectual humility i. By encouraging people to balance reasons for disapproval against reasons to tolerate that which we disapprove of, tolerance makes dialogue and debate possible. This can be done, for example, by national and community level leadership demonstrating a willingness to disagree, debate, and endure differences. Moreover, institutions can establish inclusive social norms with egalitarian citizenship regimes that allow for differences to be expressed, even if these are only tolerated.
Such norms can collectively help us learn how to live together despite our differences. In a nation divided between two almost equally powerful political factions, tolerance is a necessity for avoiding future conflict.
Neither side of the political divide is going to vanquish the other, or eradicate opposing beliefs, practices and values entirely. Calls for unity by leaders and institutions are a marked improvement from messages of division.
However, tolerance is going to be a more realistic, and more effective, strategy for addressing irreconcilable divisions stemming from ideological, religious, cultural and moral differences that are inevitable in a large, free, pluralistic nation.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.
Gareth, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, is the series editor of Best American Infographics and can be reached at garethideas AT gmail. Kumar Yogeeswaran is an associate professor of social psychology at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
His primary research is on the topics of diversity, social identity, implicit bias, and intergroup conflict in pluralistic nations. Go to the new dw. More info OK. Wrong language? Change it here DW. COM has chosen English as your language setting. COM in 30 languages. Deutsche Welle. Open your heart - Artikel Being tolerant Tolerance makes it possible for people to coexist peacefully.
Curiosity about new ideas Tolerance is an important aspect of German society, even if there are people here who, for example, are intolerant toward migrants. Print out information about this episode PDF. Date
0コメント