Top

Political Behavior

Published in:

16-01-2018 | Original Paper

Does Intolerance Dampen Dissent? Macro-Tolerance and Protest in American Metropolitan Areas

Authors: Christopher Claassen, James L. Gibson

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 1/2019

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Political tolerance has long been regarded as one of the most important democratic values because intolerant political cultures are believed to foster conformity and inhibit dissent. Although widely endorsed, this theory has rarely been investigated. Using multilevel regression with poststratification to measure levels of macro-tolerance in U.S. metropolitan areas, and event data to measure rates of protest, we test whether cultures of intolerance do indeed inhibit public expressions of dissent. We find that they do: levels of macro-tolerance are positively and strongly associated with higher rates of protest in American metropolitan areas. Our findings have implications for the study of political tolerance, for normative theories of free speech and other civil liberties, and for scholarship on protest and collective action.

previous article The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence

next article Phenotypic Preference in Mexican Migrants: Evidence from a Random Household Survey

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

MSAs are the counties adjacent to an urbanized core area of at least 50,000 people that have “a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties” (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_cbsa.html, accessed 10/19/2017).

MSAs are also an attractive unit of analysis for efforts to explain protest incidence inasmuch as the study of protest in the U.S.—if not also protest itself—has primarily been an urban preoccupation. Significant studies that use cities or metropolitan statistical areas as the units of analysis include Eisinger (1973), Okamoto (2003), Olzak and Shanahan (1996), Olzak, Shanahan, and McEneaney (1996), and Spilerman (1970).

Using a one-way ANOVA, we find no statistically significant difference across survey years in micro-level political tolerance (F = 0.91, df = 4, p = 0.46). See below for the measurement of micro-tolerance.

We suspect that GDELT incorrectly classifies news reports as describing a protest in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA to a far greater degree than is the case for other MSAs. The reason is that foreign policy reporters occasionally refer to international interactions using national capitals, e.g., “Washington protested the actions of Teheran.” Such false positives affect only the nation’ capital among the MSAs and are likely responsible for a considerable proportion of the protests we counted as occurring between 2007 and 2011 using the GDELT data. Indeed, even after applying our filters to remove false positives, we count 1261 protest events per year in Washington DC MSA, compared with 306 per year in San Francisco, which is otherwise our most protest-prone MSA.

Leemann and Wasserfallen (2017) point out that MRP can be conducted when one knows only the marginal distributions of demographic and geographic populations. To do so, one creates a simulated joint distribution under the assumption that the proportion of MSA residents who are, for example, aged over 65, is constant across the categories of the other demographic factor(s). Leeman and Wasserfallen show that this approach produces estimates as accurate as those obtained using classic MRP, especially if demographic factors are only weakly inter-correlated.

Briefly, fixed-group measures of tolerance are those in which the questions refer to political groups selected by the researcher (e.g., Stouffer 1955). Least-liked measures allow the respondents themselves to identify the groups (e.g., Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982). Support for civil liberties refers to attitudes about whether certain types of activities, irrespective of the groups involved, ought to be allowed (e.g., giving certain types of inflammatory speeches; see Davis 2007 and Gibson and Bingham 1985).

Cronbach’s alpha for the entire set of eight items is 0.72, which indicates that even a simple summated index of the items would have adequate reliability.

Ward et al. (2013) provide the illustration of international trade or currency “wars” that might be counted as conflict events.

This is correlation is obtained using the “filtered” GDELT data; the method of filtering is described in the next paragraph. Using the raw, unfiltered GDELT protest counts, the correlation with the DCA counts is even higher, at 0.83.

Indeed, we might expect that MSAs, being urban areas, exhibit more homogenous levels of media density than states, which vary greatly in their degree of urbanization. As such, newspaper based measures of protest incidence might in fact be more accurate at the MSA-level than the state-level.

Offsets are variables included in regression models with coefficients fixed to a value of one. Doing so in this case allows the log of population to be moved to the left-hand side of the equation. In turn, this permits an interpretation of the model as one of (logged) rate of protest rather than protest incidence, which is arguably a more intuitive interpretation.

We note that our results hold when (1) using the raw, unfiltered measure of protest incidence and (2) removing three MSAs that were influential outliers as defined by their Cook’s Distances. These results are reported in the Online Appendix.

Of the three major micro-level predictors of political intolerance—support for democratic institutions and processes, psychological insecurity, and threat perceptions (Gibson 2006)—only threat perceptions seem likely to be much affected by environmental conditions, at least in the short-term. As Gibson and Gouws (2003) have noted, this means that finding an exogenous instrument by which change in political tolerance can be induced is more difficult than one might imagine.

Ackerman, B. A., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.

Barnes, S. H., & Kaase, M. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brace, P., Sims-Butler, K., Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2002). Public opinion in the American states: New perspectives using national survey data. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 173–189.CrossRef

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.

Dalton, R. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Dalton, R., Van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 51–73.CrossRef

Davis, D. W. (2007). Negative liberty: Public opinion and the terrorist attacks on America. New York: Russell Sage.

Duch, R. M., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). ‘Putting up with’ fascists in Western Europe: A comparative, cross-level analysis of political tolerance. Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 237–273.CrossRef

Earl, J., Soule, S. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2003). Protest under fire? Explaining the policing of protest. American Sociological Review, 68(4), 581–606.CrossRef

Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28.CrossRef

Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States became the most punitive democracy in the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Enns, P. K., & Koch, J. (2013). Public opinion in the U.S. states: 1956 to 2010. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 13(3), 349–372.CrossRef

Enos, R. D. (2016). What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 123–142.CrossRef

Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erisen, C., & Kentmen-Cin, C. (2017). Tolerance and perceived threat toward Muslim immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands. European Union Politics, 18(1), 73–97.CrossRef

Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gelman, A., & Little, T. C. (1997). Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression. Survey Methodology, 23(2), 127–135.

Ghitza, Y., & Gelman, A. (2013). Deep interactions with MRP: Election turnout and voting patterns among small electoral subgroups. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 762–776.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (1988). Political intolerance and political repression during the McCarthy Red Scare. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 511–529.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (1989). The policy consequences of political intolerance: Political repression during the Vietnam War Era. Journal of Politics, 51(1), 13–35.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338–356.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (1995). The political freedom of African Americans: A contextual analysis of racial attitudes, political tolerance, and individual liberty. Political Geography, 14(1995), 571–599.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (1997). Mass opposition to the Soviet putsch of August 1991: Collective action, rational choice, and democratic values in the former Soviet Union. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 671–684.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (2005). On the nature of tolerance: Dichotomous or continuous? Political Behavior, 27(4), 313–323.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics, 4(1), 21–34.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (2008). Intolerance and political repression in the United States: A half-century after McCarthyism. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 96–108.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L. (2013). Measuring political tolerance and general support for pro-civil liberties policies: Notes, evidence, and cautions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 45–68.CrossRef

Gibson, J. L., & Bingham, R. D. (1985). Civil liberties and Nazis: The Skokie free-speech controversy. New York: Praeger.

Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2003). Overcoming intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, M. W., & Evans, A. (1986). The power approach to intergroup hostility. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(3), 469–486.CrossRef

Goldstein, R. J. (1978). Political Repression in Modern America: From 1870 to the Present. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co.

Hammond, J., & Weidmann, N. B. (2014). Using machine-coded event data for the micro-level study of political violence. Research & Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014539924.CrossRef

Hanna, A. (2014). Developing a system for the automated coding of protest event data. Social Science Research Network, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425232.

Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 851–871.CrossRef

Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kalkan, K. O., Layman, G. C., & Uslaner, E. M. (2009). ‘Band of others’? attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 847–862.CrossRef

Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). How should we estimate public opinion in the states? American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 107–121.CrossRef

Leemann, L., & Wasserfallen, F. (2017). Extending the use and prediction precision of subnational public opinion estimation. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12319.CrossRef

Leetaru, K., & Schrodt, P. A. (2013). GDELT: Global data on events, location and tone, 1979–2012. GDELT Project, http://data.gdeltproject.org/documentation/ISA.2013.GDELT.pdf.

Lichbach, M. I. (1989). An evaluation of ‘does economic inequality breed political conflict?’. World Politics, 41(4), 431–470.CrossRef

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). The coddling of the American mind. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/. Accessed 3 May 2016.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90.CrossRef

McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58(2), 361–382.CrossRef

Muller, E., Jukam, T., & Seligson, M. (1982). Diffuse political support and antisystem political behavior: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 240–264.CrossRef

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nunn, C. Z., Crockett, H. J., & Williams, J. A. (1978). Tolerance for nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Okamoto, D. G. (2003). Toward a theory of panethnicity: Explaining Asian American collective action. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 811–842.CrossRef

Olzak, S., & Shanahan, S. (1996). Deprivation and race riots: An extension of Spilerman’s analysis. Social Forces, 74(3), 931–961.CrossRef

Olzak, S., Shanahan, S., & McEneaney, E. H. (1996). Poverty, segregation, and race riots: 1960 to 1993. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 590–613.CrossRef

Pacheco, J. (2011). Using national surveys to measure dynamic U.S. state public opinion: A guideline for scholars and an application. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11(4), 415–439.CrossRef

Park, D. K., Gelman, A., & Bafumi, J. (2004). Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls. Political Analysis, 12(4), 375–385.CrossRef

Peffley, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multi-level model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.CrossRef

Prothro, J. W., & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22(2), 276–294.CrossRef

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

Rapp, C., & Ackermann, K. (2016). The consequences of social intolerance on non-violent protest. European Political Science Review, 8(4), 567–588.CrossRef

Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Schussman, A., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84(2), 1083–1108.CrossRef

Spilerman, S. (1970). The causes of racial disturbances: A comparison of alternative explanations. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 627–649.CrossRef

Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.

Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Segregation and mistrust: Diversity, isolation, and social cohesion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ward, M. D., Beger, A., Cutler, J., Dickenson, M., Dorff, C., & Radford. B. (2013). Comparing GDELT and ICEWS event data. ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303211430_Comparing_GDELT_and_ICEWS_event_data.

Warshaw, C., & Rodden, J. (2012). How should we measure district-level public opinion on individual issues? Journal of Politics, 74(1), 203–219.CrossRef

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Title: Does Intolerance Dampen Dissent? Macro-Tolerance and Protest in American Metropolitan Areas
Authors: Christopher Claassen
James L. Gibson
Publication date: 16-01-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Political Behavior / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9444-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Phenotypic Preference in Mexican Migrants: Evidence from a Random Household Survey

Left–Right Categorization and Perceptions of Party Ideologies

Measuring Preferences for Divided Government: Some Americans Want Divided Government and Vote to Create It

The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence

Electoral Confidence, Overconfidence, and Risky Behavior: Evidence from a Study with Elected Politicians

Negative Descriptive Social Norms and Political Action: People Aren’t Acting, So You Should

Premium Partner