We conducted two studies to test the hypothesis that respect for disapproved outgroups increases tolerance toward them. In Study 1, we employed a panel sample of supporters of the Tea Party movement in the United States and found that Tea Party supporters’ respect for homosexuals and Muslims as equal fellow citizens positively predicted Tea Party supporters’ tolerance toward these groups. There was no indication that alternative recognition processes (i.e., achievement recognition or need recognition) played a similar role in the development of tolerance. Study 2 replicated the respect–tolerance link with the experimental method and a more comprehensive measure of tolerance. In particular, it demonstrated that the link also holds with regard to tolerance in the public or political sphere. The wider implications of our research for societal pluralism are discussed.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62-77. doi:10.1037/a0022615
2.
BiernatM.VescioT. K.GreenH. L. (1996). Selective self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1194-1209. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1194
3.
BollenK. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
4.
BrewerM. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BrewerM. B.PierceK. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428-437. doi:10.1177/0146167204271710
6.
BrownW. (2006). Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CarsonD. A. (2012). The intolerance of tolerance. Nottingham, UK: Inter-Varsity Press.
8.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T. (2014). Exploring causal and noncausal hypotheses in nonexperimental data. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 504-533). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ForstR. (2013). Toleration in conflict: Past and present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GibsonJ. L.DuchR. M.TedinK. L. (1992). Democratic values and the transformation of the Soviet Union. The Journal of Politics, 54, 329-371. doi:10.2307/2132030
12.
HonnethA. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
13.
KleinA.ZickA. (2013). Toleranz versus Vorurteil? Eine empirische Analyse zum Verhältnis von Toleranz und Vorurteil [Tolerance versus prejudice? An empirical analysis of the relation between tolerance and prejudice]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 65, 277-300. doi:10.1007/s11577-013-0203-z
14.
MarcuseH. (1970). Repressive tolerance. In WolffR. P.MooreB.MarcuseH. (Eds.), A critique of pure tolerance (5th ed., pp. 81-123). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
15.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
16.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. (First edition published 1998)
17.
RawlsJ. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
RengerD.RengerS.MichéM.SimonB. (2017). A social recognition approach to autonomy: The role of equality-based respect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 479-492. doi:10.1177/0146167216688212
19.
ScanlonT. M. (2000). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
20.
ScanlonT. M. (2003). The difficulty of tolerance: Essays in political philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ScarmanR. (1987). Toleration and the law. In MendusS.EdwardsD. (Eds.), On toleration (pp. 49-62). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
SchumackerR.LomaxR. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
SimonB. (2017). Grundriss einer sozialpsychologischen Respekttheorie: Implikationen für Kooperation und Konflikt in pluralistischen Gesellschaften [Outline of a social psychological theory of respect: Implications for cooperation and conflict in pluralistic societies]. Psychologische Rundschau, 68, 241-250. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000326
24.
SimonB.AufderheideB.KampmeierC. (2001). The social psychology of minority–majority relations. In BrownR.GaertnerS. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 303-323). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
25.
SimonB.GrabowH.BöhmeN. (2015). On the meaning of respect for sexual minorities: The case of gays and lesbians. Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 297-310. doi:10.1080/19419899.2014.987683
26.
SimonB.SchaeferC. D. (2016). Tolerance as a function of disapproval and respect: The case of Muslims. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 375-383. doi:10.1111/bjso.12137
27.
SimonB.SchaeferC. D. (2018). Muslims’ tolerance towards outgroups: Longitudinal evidence for the role of respect. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 240-249. doi:10.1111/bjso.12213
28.
SkocpolT.WilliamsonV. (2012). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican conservatism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
SullivanJ. L.PieresonJ.MarcusG. E. (1979). An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s–1970s. American Political Science Review, 73, 781-794. doi:10.2307/1955404
30.
TurnerJ. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
31.
VerkuytenM.YogeeswaranK. (2017). The social psychology of intergroup toleration: A roadmap for theory and research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 72-96. doi:10.1177/1088868316640974
32.
WestS. G.FinchJ. F.CurranP. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
YuanK. H.BentlerP. M.ZhangW. (2005). The effect of skewness and kurtosis on mean and covariance structure analysis: The univariate case and its multivariate implication. Sociological Methods & Research, 34, 240-258.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
