The Dimensions and Effects of Reciprocity in Political Tolerance Judgments

Author(s):  
Paul A. Djupe ◽  
Jacob R. Neiheisel
Keyword(s):  
2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina A. Meyer

Thirteen students in a graduate-level course on Historical and Policy Perspectives in Higher Education held face-to-face and online discussions on five controversial topics: Diversity, Academic Freedom, Political Tolerance, Affirmative Action, and Gender. Students read materials on each topic and generated questions for discussion that were categorized by Bloom’s taxonomy so that the level of questions in the two discussion settings would be closely parallel. Upon completion of each discussion, they answered questions that addressed depth and length of the discussion, ability to remember, and a self-assessment of how the student learned. Students’ assessments show a consistent preference for the face-to-face discussion but a small number of students preferred the online setting. However, what is perhaps more interesting is a minority of approximately one-third of the students who perceived no difference between the settings, or that the two settings were perhaps complementary.


1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Avery
Keyword(s):  

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 603 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Richard D. Bingham
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 001041402199716
Author(s):  
Jana Morgan ◽  
Nathan J. Kelly

Although many countries meet electoral standards of democracy, often these regimes fail to promote social inclusion or meaningful representation. We argue that systems of exclusion have deleterious consequences for how people think about democracy, undermining tolerance for political dissent. Using cross-national public opinion data together with contextual measures of economic and political marginalization along ethnoracial lines, we evaluate the relationships between exclusion and political tolerance across Latin America. Over-time analysis in Bolivia further probes the mechanisms linking exclusion to intolerance. We find that tolerance of dissent is depressed where ethnoracial hierarchies are pronounced. We advance understanding of oft-unexplained society-level differences in political tolerance and emphasize the importance of the macro-structural context in shaping citizens’ commitments to basic democratic rights.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-274
Author(s):  
Alexandra A. Siegel ◽  
Jonathan Nagler ◽  
Richard Bonneau ◽  
Joshua A. Tucker

abstractDo online social networks affect political tolerance in the highly polarized climate of postcoup Egypt? Taking advantage of the real-time networked structure of Twitter data, the authors find that not only is greater network diversity associated with lower levels of intolerance, but also that longer exposure to a diverse network is linked to less expression of intolerance over time. The authors find that this relationship persists in both elite and non-elite diverse networks. Exploring the mechanisms by which network diversity might affect tolerance, the authors offer suggestive evidence that social norms in online networks may shape individuals’ propensity to publicly express intolerant attitudes. The findings contribute to the political tolerance literature and enrich the ongoing debate over the relationship between online echo chambers and political attitudes and behavior by providing new insights from a repressive authoritarian context.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Mohd Azmir Mohd Nizah ◽  
Mashitah Sulaiman ◽  
Adibah Sulaiman @ Mohamad ◽  
Latifah Abdul Latiff
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Sullivan ◽  
Pat Walsh ◽  
Michal Shamir ◽  
David G. Barnum ◽  
James L. Gibson

In this article, we present data showing that national legislators are more tolerant than the public in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. Two explanations for this phenomenon are presented and assessed. The first is the selective recruitment of Members of Parliament, Knesset and Congress from among those in the electorate whose demographic, ideological and personality characteristics predispose them to be tolerant. Although this process does operate in all four countries, it is insufficient to explain all of the differences in tolerance between elites and the public in at least three countries. The second explanation relies on a process of explicitly political socialization, leading to differences in tolerance between elites and their public that transcend individual-level, personal characteristics. Relying on our analysis of political tolerance among legislators in the four countries, we suggest how this process of political socialization may be operating.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document