Setting limits to tolerance: An experimental investigation of individual reactions to extremism and violence

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Eva‐Maria Trüdinger, Conrad Ziller
{"title":"Setting limits to tolerance: An experimental investigation of individual reactions to extremism and violence","authors":"Eva‐Maria Trüdinger, Conrad Ziller","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.1000511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tolerating others' opinions, even if disliked, is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. At the same time, there are limits to political tolerance as tolerating extremists and groups who use violence would threaten the foundations of tolerance itself. We study people's willingness to set limits to tolerance in case of violence and extremism (scope of tolerance)—under different conditions regarding ideological groups (left-wing, right-wing, religious) and offline/online contexts of free speech. Using data from a large-scale survey experiment conducted in Germany, we show that citizens clearly set limits to tolerance of different groups, especially if the latter have violent intentions, and that people tend to be more tolerant online than offline. Moreover, we find that citizens are more tolerant toward groups that are closer to their own ideological stance. However, violence disrupts such an ideological bias as respondents across the ideological spectrum exhibit low levels of tolerance toward violent groups—irrespectively of their political stance. Our findings highlight the importance of situational factors as foundations of judgments on the limits to tolerance.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1000511","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Tolerating others' opinions, even if disliked, is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. At the same time, there are limits to political tolerance as tolerating extremists and groups who use violence would threaten the foundations of tolerance itself. We study people's willingness to set limits to tolerance in case of violence and extremism (scope of tolerance)—under different conditions regarding ideological groups (left-wing, right-wing, religious) and offline/online contexts of free speech. Using data from a large-scale survey experiment conducted in Germany, we show that citizens clearly set limits to tolerance of different groups, especially if the latter have violent intentions, and that people tend to be more tolerant online than offline. Moreover, we find that citizens are more tolerant toward groups that are closer to their own ideological stance. However, violence disrupts such an ideological bias as respondents across the ideological spectrum exhibit low levels of tolerance toward violent groups—irrespectively of their political stance. Our findings highlight the importance of situational factors as foundations of judgments on the limits to tolerance.
设定宽容的界限:对个人对极端主义和暴力反应的实验性调查
容忍别人的意见,即使不喜欢,也是自由民主的基石。与此同时,政治容忍也有限度,因为容忍极端分子和使用暴力的团体将威胁到容忍本身的基础。我们研究人们在暴力和极端主义(容忍范围)的情况下,在不同的意识形态团体(左翼、右翼、宗教)和线下/在线自由言论环境下,设定容忍限度的意愿。我们利用在德国进行的一项大规模调查实验的数据表明,公民对不同群体的宽容程度有明确的限制,尤其是在后者有暴力意图的情况下,人们往往在网上比在线下更宽容。此外,我们发现公民对与自己的意识形态立场更接近的团体更宽容。然而,暴力破坏了这种意识形态偏见,因为无论其政治立场如何,意识形态范围内的受访者对暴力团体的容忍度都很低。我们的研究结果强调了情境因素作为判断容忍极限的基础的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信