Pluralistic conditioning: social tolerance and effective democracy

Article English OPEN
Dunn, K ; Singh, SP (2014)
  • Publisher: Taylor & Francis (Routledge)

Modern democracy is based in dissent and diversity. The essential defining aspect of democracy is the existence of competitive and fair elections; an element which emphasizes diversity of opinion and serves to place one party (or group of parties) in power, while relegating the other(s) to dissent. The diversity inherent to democratic systems instills in a country's inhabitants an awareness of difference, which in turn propagates more tolerant individuals. In autocratic regimes, expression of diversity is restrained, being considered the basis of disorder and thereby detrimental to the state. In liberal democratic societies, freedom of expression and speech and a free media are widely accepted principles. Political parties and social groups in liberal democratic societies are therefore able to express varied and opposing opinions on societal concerns, and such opinions are broadcast to large swaths of the population. Exposure to such variety indicates to even the most inattentive of individuals that they reside in a diverse and heterogeneous society. For many individuals, exposure to diversity promotes tolerance of difference. While diversity tends to breed tolerance, there is a critical exception to this generality. Exposure to diversity only facilitates tolerance of difference when such exposure occurs under positive or neutral conditions. Those who are exposed to diversity under aversive conditions are instead pushed toward intolerance of difference. Our thesis in this article is thus one of pluralistic conditioning. In general, when individuals are exposed to diversity under positive or neutral conditions, they become more tolerant of diversity. However, when individuals are exposed to diversity under aversive conditions, they become less tolerant of difference. This thesis unites findings from multiple disciplines under a single theoretical framework.
  • References (10)

    Alesina, Alberto, Arnaud Devleeschauwer, William Easterly, Sergio Kurlat and Romain T. Wacziarg, 'Fractionalization'. Journal of Economic Growth Vol. 8, No. 2 (2003).

    Allport, Gordon W., The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954.

    Altemeyer, Bob, The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.

    Altemeyer, Bob, Enemies of Freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.

    Altemeyer, Bob, Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1981.

    Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark and Matt Golder, 'Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses'. Political Analysis Vol. 14, No. 1 (2006).

    Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty, 'Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 37, No. 1 (1979).

    Chong, Denns, 'Review: Political Tolerance on Context: Support for Unpopular Minorities in Israel, New Zealand, and the United States'. The American Political Science Review Vol. 80, No. 4 (1986).

    Cohen, Ronald and Duane Alwin, 'Bennington Women of the 1930s: Political Attitudes Over the Life Course'. In Women's Lives Through Time: Educated American Women of the Twentieth Century, eds. Kathleen Day Hulbert and Diane Tickton Schuster.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

    Cook, Stuart W., 'The Systematic Analysis of Socially Significant Events: A Strategy for Social Research'. Journal of Social Issues Vol. 18, No. 2 (1962).

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 194
Share - Bookmark