The Extensiveness of Group Membership and Social Capital: The Impact on Political Tolerance Attitudes
Cigler, Allan, Joslyn, Mark R., Political Research Quarterly
This article examines the relationship between membership in voluntary associations and political tolerance attitudes. Though the extensive literature on social capital posits a relationship between group involvement and political tolerance, empirical scrutiny of this proposition has yet to emerge. Specifically, we hypothesize that group membership-its extensiveness across a variety of different associational sectors, and the type of group affiliation-should be associated with variation in political tolerance. The 1972-1994 cumulative files for the General Social Surveys and the 1990 Citizen Participation Survey provide the data to test our hypotheses. The primary findings indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between the extensiveness of group membership and political tolerance. Moreover, this association grows stronger with each additional membership. Finally after controlling for the extensiveness of group memberships, we find that membership in several specific types of groups affects political tolerance. Overall, results strongly support the social capital proposition linking group membership to political tolerance.
Compared to other western democratic nations, the United States is considered a nation of "joiners" (Almond and Verba 1963, Verba 1965), and the impact of citizen involvement in group life has long been acknowledged to be a crucial component underlying the success of American democracy (Tocqueville 1945). Citizens learning by experience in associational settings, both political and non-political, are said to acquire transferable skills, as well as behavior patterns and orientations, i.e., "habits of the heart" in Tocqueville's words, essential for a democratic polity
Research interest on questions of the impact of associational activity upon citizen orientations and the resulting political consequences has increased in recent years, sparked by the work of political scientist Robert Putnam (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 2000). Building upon the early work of James Coleman (1988), Putnam argues that there is a crucial connection between civic engagement and responsive democratic government. Civic engagement refers to people's associational connections to the life of their communities in the broadest possible sense, from participating in a bowling league or a church to becoming active in a political party or other political group. Experience in a wide array of such activities develops what Putnam (1995a: 65-66) calls social capital: "features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." Putnam views with alarm the apparent trend in the decline of group involvement, the lost opportunities for social capital development as a consequence, and the resulting isolation of citizens from each other as well as from their government.
Putnam's observations concerning the decline of social capital have not gone unchallenged. Perhaps the most serious critique has focused upon the exact nature of the group basis of social capital development, where some have argued that Putnam fails to understand the character of participation and social networks in the modern world, especially the increasing irrelevance of formal organizations to people's lives and the rise of new forms of networking and civic participation (see for example, Ladd 2000; Skocpol 1999; Skocpol and Fiorina 2000). Some have even speculated that "perhaps . . . the picture of voluntary associations as the source of communitarian habits of the heart is too sweeping" (Damico et al. 2000: 397).
Empirical research bearing directly on such questions is surprisingly sparse. While there is an abundance of research linking group membership to increased levels of political participation such as voting (eg., Rosenstone and Hansen 1993), there are a few studies that explore the linkage of associational involvement and the development of the kinds of citizen orientations deemed essential for a democratic system (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Brehm and Rahn 1997; Joslyn and Cigler 2001; Damico et al. 2000; Ayala 2000).
The paucity of research on the relationship is particularly puzzling since both the group politics and public opinion sub-fields within the discipline are especially well developed in terms of both theory and empirical testing. Students of group politics, however, have preferred to study such concerns as why citizens join groups, how groups mobilize members and maintain themselves, and the impact of groups on the electoral and policy process, to the exclusion of questions about how members develop macro-significant democratic orientations from their micro experiences within associations (see literature summaries in Baumgartner and Leech 1998; Cigler 1991). And public opinion researchers studying such key democratic orientations as political tolerance have likewise not prominently linked group involvement variables to variation in tolerance attitudes (see the literature summary in Finkel, Sigelman and Humphries 1999). In our study, we attempt to address this research gap by examining the impact of variation in group membership upon a crucial democratic orientation that is widely viewed as underlying a civic culture, citizens' levels of political tolerance. Utilizing the comprehensive data from General Social Surveys and the 1990 Citizen Participation Survey, we find that there is indeed a strong, independent association of group membership with levels of political tolerance. But it is not only group membership per se, but. also the number of memberships in overlapping group sectors (whether religious, political, occupational, etc.) and the type of group that affects tolerance attitudes as well.
INVOLVEMENT IN ASSOCIATIONS AND POLITICAL TOLERANCE
At the core of a democratic ethos is the willingness of citizens to recognize and value the rights of others in the political process. As Sniderman and his colleagues (1989: 25) have noted, "The more tolerant citizens are of the rights of others, the more secure are the rights of all, their own included; hence the special place of political tolerance in contemporary conceptions of democratic values and citizenship."
Since political orientations and behavior are learned (Sears 1975; Conover 1991), the experience of citizen's in associational contexts would seem to be an essential component in the development of political tolerance orientations. Ideally, political toleration is both necessitated and enhanced by immersion into the life of a voluntary association. The give-and-take of face-to-face internal group interaction, coupled with the organizational imperative for cooperative endeavors, encourages the development of norms such as reciprocity and trust. Compromise is often called for and willingness to respect the views and affiliations of others becomes a social necessity within the group. It is thought orientations developed within such "little democracies" affect the larger political context, forming the basis of diffuse support for higher-level social and political institutions (Almond and Verba 1963; Brehm and Rahn 1997).
Unfortunately for those committed to the development of a civic culture, the ideal group environment may not reflect reality for many citizens, leading even Putnam to recognize that associational activity may, under certain circumstances, have a "dark side" when it comes to the development of an orientation like political tolerance (Putnam 2000: 350-53). Obviously, participation in a homogeneous group with an ideological orientation, hierarchical rather than democratic in terms of decision making style, like the American Nazi Party, the KKK or even some churches, is not conducive to development of democratic orientations. Recent empirical studies have in fact demonstrated the importance of the structural dimensions of the group environment-hierarchical versus horizontal and diverse versus homogenous-to the growth of social capital (Stone and Rochon 1998; Ridout and Espino 2000).
Further-more, even more benign group experiences for many citizens may not be conducive to the development of political tolerance. The tendency toward "checkbook" participation, the decline of face-to-face group interaction in many groups, and the rise of staff policy domination isolates rather than incorporates citizens (Hayes 1983; Skocpol and Fiorina 2000). Affiliation may be, in reality, more "sponsorship" than "membership" and internal democracy rarely practiced. The proliferation of groups in recent decades has led to a group universe made up of associations with narrower and narrower interests, more characterized by relatively homogeneous than diverse membership bodies (Loomis and Cigler 1998). And in order to attract members, it is often necessary to emphasize the threat of "collective bads," demonizing opponents (Godwin 1988; Mitchell 1979). None of this appears compatible with the growth of such important democratic orientations as political tolerance.
Still all may not be lost. The proliferation of groups, even with the character noted, does afford citizens at least the opportunity to involve themselves in some way-from passive to active involvement-in a wider cadre of groups than ever before. From this vantage point, a key factor becomes the number of groups with which one is affiliated, and particularly whether or not the set of groups are cumulative or overlapping in their impact (Truman 1951; Verba 1965). The cumulative pattern of group association, when one is only a member of associations of a religious nature, for example, exposes individuals to people of similar backgrounds and viewpoints, effectively reinforcing their preconceptions of people outside their immediate circle. Rather than viewed with tolerance, opponents or opposition may not be viewed as simply wrong as much as threatening and evil. On the other hand, memberships in an overlapping, yet diverse set of groups should have a reverse impact: exposure to individuals reflecting varied backgrounds and perspectives (or at a minimum exposure to various group literatures) would potentially have the effect of sensitizing one to the views of others and perhaps contributing to an empathy for their positions, even if one does not agree.
In sum, we hypothesize that political tolerance should vary with the number of memberships in a broad range of group sectors. Furthermore, we anticipate this relationship will be positive. This expectation arises from our belief that the greater number of memberships in distinct group sectors, the greater the potential for exposure to be overlapping in character as opposed to being cumulative. Given the listing of memberships in the two data sets employed in this study, we think this is a quite reasonable and appropriate inference. We will, however, return to this point in the methodology portion of the article.
In addition, the positive effects of multiple memberships should occur independent of group type, which itself is likely to influence political tolerance. It seems likely, for example, that group sectors more cosmopolitan than isolated would be more conducive to developing tolerant attitudes. Similarly, sectors having reputations for more democratic leadership would be fertile group for the development of political tolerance. Most typically, researchers have emphasized the effects of group membership or group type, rarely accounting for the potential consequences of both factors in the production of social capital. This omission is especially prominent given the theoretical perspective and empirical evidence noted above. Indeed, because it appears that the generalized socialization afforded by multiple group memberships and the nature of socialization inculcated by a specific type of association are both likely to affect social capital, any analysis of political tolerance should recognize these two important yet separate determinants.
Utilizing the General Social Surveys (GSS) and Citizen Participation Survey (CPS), we are able to demonstrate a strong relationship between the extensiveness of group membership across group sectors and political tolerance. More specifically, we find (1) increasingly positive effects on political tolerance for each additional group sector in which a respondent is a member; (2) that specific types of group affiliation affect tolerance attitudes; and (3) the effect of both multiple memberships and membership type varies across different dimensions of political tolerance.
DATA AND METHODS
The data utilized in this article are drawn from the General Social Surveys cumulative file 1972-1994 and the 1990 Citizen Participation Study For several reasons, these data are well suited for probing the questions we have posed. First, both the GSS and CPS data document respondent's membership across an extensive listing of voluntary organizations. Respondents were provided a list of 20 different types of voluntary organizations in the CPS and 16 for the GSS-fraternal groups, unions, political issue organizations, hobby clubs, neighborhood associations, and so on-and asked whether or not they were members of each type. From individual responses to each associational category, a measure of multiple memberships can be constructed from the CPS data and is provided by GSS. The number of memberships reported across listed categories thus provides a convenient indicator of the diversity of respondents' group experiences. Second, conventional questions assessing political tolerance are available in the GSS and CPS, though GSS yields an especially comprehensive battery of identical measures for several years. Finally, by utilizing GSS and CPS together we seek the considerable benefits of examining our hypotheses across different data sources.
Model and Measurement
Ihe general model employed to evaluate the relationship between multiple group memberships, group types, and tolerance attitudes is given by the following equation:
where Z is a vector of control variables, b3 is a vector of coefficients, and E is the error term. In the construction of a tolerance index, we followed several previous authors that utilized GSS data and discovered fairly strong evidence of a general tolerance dimension (Finkel et al. 1999; Bobo and Licari 1989). While the GSS measures have been criticized by some on the grounds that they simply capture affect toward groups not tolerance (e.g., Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982), Gibson (1992a) has demonstrated convincingly that GSS measures and proposed alternatives are remarkably similar and that researchers can profitably utilize either set of measures.
The GSS asks respondents 15 questions that address three fundamental civil liberties issues related to freedom of expression: making a public speech, teaching at a college or university and having a book at a public library Each of the three questions was asked in reference to members of five nonconformists groups: atheists, communists, homosexual men, persons advocating the prohibition of elections and military rule (militants), and persons believing that blacks are genetically inferior (racists). Responses are dichotomous-allow or not allow, remove or not remove-and are coded 0 for intolerant responses and 1 for tolerant responses (see Appendix for question wording). Six additive indexes were constructed from responses, five for each set of the three questions directed toward nonconformists groups and an aggregate index that sums separate indices. The aggregate index runs from 0 (least tolerant) to 15 (most tolerant), whereas the five individual measures are scaled from 0 to 3. We follow a similar procedure-and identical to that found in Verba, Scholzman, and Brady (1995)-for the CPS data, summing four dichotomous responses to form an index from least (0) to most tolerant (4). In addition to the additive index, separate models for each subset of the index will be provided. Thus any variation that may be concealed by the aggregate indices will be exposed by examination of their disaggregated parts.
The number of memberships in various types of associations is the key variable on the right hand side of the equation. In order to examine the potential impact of multiple memberships, the total number of memberships across groups was computed for every respondent. For both data sets, approximately 90 percent of respondents reported memberships in 4 group types or less, with less than one percent extending beyond 8 group-type affiliations. Due to the considerable skew of the distribution, we collapsed all respondents reporting 4 or above memberships into a single category. Table 1 presents the relevant distributions across the different data sources.
Two issues are important when considering measurement of the number of group memberships. First, we cannot assume distinctions between non-membership and membership are the same as those between each level of membership. As a consequence, it appears more reasonable to adopt an ordinal as opposed to an interval representation. Second, an ordinal measure supports the construction of several dummy variables that enable precise comparison of the various levels of membership to a common baseline. Theoretically, the appropriate baseline is zero. Because tolerance attitudes are more likely to arise through social interaction than isolation, those individuals reporting no group experiences are expected to be least tolerant. We therefore constructed four dummy variables representing one to four-plus, group-type memberships. Respondents who reported no memberships were treated as the omitted category We then used comparisons with the non-membership group to ascertain the number of membership types that produce the greatest impact on political tolerance. Recall that we hypothesized that additional membership types should be associated with higher levels of political tolerance. The estimated differences between no membership and membership are, as a consequence, expected to be positive and to increase in magnitude with the number of group affiliations.
We control for the specific type of group by including all categories in the equations. Respondents reporting membership in a specific group type are coded as 1 and zero otherwise. The baseline group is thus respondents who report no members across all group types. The GSS equation will comprise 16 categories of group types, while 20 types are included for the CPS.
In addition to the crucial behavioral linkage proposed between multiple memberships and tolerance, we specify several exogenous influences that have been demonstrated to affect tolerance attitudes (see appendix for question wording and measurement). Foremost among these influences is education. Education is thought to increase familiarity with diverse ideas and people while inculcating general democratic principles that contribute to greater tolerance and respect for individual differences (Bobo and Licari 1989; Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982). Previous research has also demonstrated an inverse relationship between political tolerance and age (Stouffer 1955; Nunn et al. 1978). The increasing commitment to civil rights of the poor, women, and blacks, especially among the youth in the 1960s, is thought to have given younger respondents a greater commitment to tolerance (Sullivan et al. 1981). Other researchers have uncovered the particularly important role of religion, as higher levels of religiosity are negatively associated with support for civil liberties (Stouffer 1955; McCloskey and Brill 1983). Additional social variables include sex and race. Men tend to give slightly more tolerant responses than do women, while African Americans appear generally less tolerant than whites (Green and Waxman 1987; Finkel, Sigelman, and Humphries 1999). It is equally important to control for the effects of political ideology and income (Sullivan et al. 1981). Finally, we recognize temporal variation. Overtime the public has arguably become more tolerant, especially with regard to free.-speech issues of identified groups (Stouffer 1955; Wilson 1994; Davis 1988). This trend suggests the likelihood of unique intercepts for each year tolerance attitudes are examined. Thus, when pooling across various years of the GSS cumulative file, a dummy variable for each year was necessary (Stimson 1985). The years 1977, 1980, 1984, 1987-89, 1991, 1993-94 are available and 1977 served as our baseline year.2
The primary task here is to investigate whether the extensiveness of memberships in voluntary organizations, independent of other relevant predictors including group type, does in fact vary with political tolerance. We rely on ordinary least squares to fit the model to our various dependent variables. In addition, for comparability of estimated relationships within and across equations, we chose to standardize our numerical scales by the range of the variables-making all variables 0 to 1.3 Table 2 presents results from the GSS data. Inspection of estimates indicates that most variables perform well, exhibiting the expected signs and magnitudes. The pattern of estimates for annual change suggest that tolerance attitudes as a whole increased since the baseline year 1977, especially in the 1990s. Furthermore, standard demographic variables such as education, income, and age exhibit consistently strong effects across the indexes. More important for our purposes, even after controlling for these conventional determinants, group membership emerges as a significant and dependable predictor of political tolerance. Further-more it appears that additional memberships are associated with greater levels of tolerance. For example, membership in one group type boosts tolerance levels by approximately half a point (b = .53, p < .00). Two group-type memberships enhance tolerance attitudes by three quarters of a point (b = .76, p < .00), while an additional membership contributes practically a full point (b = .98, p < .00). Finally, membership in four or more group-types of voluntary associations nearly doubles the impact of one membership (b = 1.24, p < .00). More striking, this pattern is apparent across four of the five components of the cumulative index.
The type of group also affects tolerance. Members of unions (b = -.51, p < .00), farm associations (b = -.87, p < .00), Greek (b = -.45, p < .05), and church groups (b = -.60, p < .00) exhibit significantly less tolerance than non-members. Conversely, membership in professional organizations (b = .38, p < .02) and literary groups (b = .38, p < .04) contributes positively to tolerance levels.
One must be careful not to over-generalize here since we cannot disaggregate within categories of group type. Putnam's (2000: 22-23) distinction between bridging (or inclusive) and bonding (exclusive) forms of social capital development may be useful in helping us understand group variation as it relates to certain democratic orientations such as political tolerance. Some groups reinforce group homogeneity, narrow self-interests and exclusive identities, while others are more outward looking and generate broader identities. Certainly, for example, the socializing experience of Southern Baptists or Pentecostals must differ from that of Quakers within the religious group category. It may well be that particular groups reflect strong sub-culture identity as well as hierarchical leadership patterns not conducive to development of particular democratic values such as political tolerance. Certain unions and farm groups may also be prime examples
Although variation occurs across tolerance indices, the estimated effects of four types of organizations (unions, farm associations, Greek organizations, and church groups) are more consistent and significant than that of other group types. However, the negative effects associated with membership in such groups can be offset by the positive contributions to tolerance orientations of a single membership. For example, the net effects on tolerance of one membership in a church group are negative but relatively trivial (-.60 + .53 = -.07). Similarly, the increase in tolerance that stems from membership in four or more groups would be more than counteracted by memberships in farm, Greek, church, and labor organizations. Thus while we have been able to establish the effects of multiple memberships, results strongly indicate that group type plays an important role as well.
Table 3 presents results from the CPS data. Once again we find support for our multiple sector membership hypotheses. Though the effects on tolerance of one membership (b = .14, p < . 16) and three memberships (b = .25, p < . 13) are indistinguishable from no memberships, the overall pattern of estimates and strength of relationships exhibited for two (b = .37, p < .00) and four memberships (b = .56, p < .01) respectively fit well with our expectations.4 Additionally, the estimates for membership type once more underscore the importance of a specific affiliation. Membership in veterans and ethnic organizations are correlated with lower levels of tolerance, compared to non-members, perhaps again reflecting the strength of sub-culture identity, whereas more tolerant attitudes are likely in political and cultural associations, which are more likely to draw people from various walks of life.
Our statistical analyses thus offer considerable support for the hypothesis that variation in group membership patterns affects political tolerance attitudes. In the presence of several other significant predictors, group membership performed well. The magnitude of influence is, in fact, comparable to such important determinants as ideology, race, region, and income. Additionally, the estimates for annual variation exhibited in Table 2 did not in any year overshadow the direct impact of membership variables. Though the effects of multiple group memberships have long been. given considerable theoretical attention, to our knowledge Tables 2 and 3 provide the first empirical evidence that group membership and group type both affect tolerance. The effect is not inconsequential. Furthermore, while the results for multiple memberships were largely the same across the GSS and CPS data, the effects of group type were not as consistent. For example, the CPS data indicated that membership in veterans groups reduces tolerance while memberships in political groups increases it. Membership in either group, however, was not significantly linked to tolerance in the GSS data-- though the estimated signs are consistent across the data sets. This difference may well be a consequence of the greater differentiation among group categories found in the CPS, the survey period, differences in question form, and the considerably smaller set of tolerance questions from which to construct a scale. In any event, the major point for researchers in this area is to recognize and control for the potential effects of specific group memberships, especially when probing for linkages between attitudes favorable to democratic processes and multiple group memberships.
The evidence uncovered indicates a significant role for group membership, group type, and multiple memberships in various group sectors determining political tolerance. First, membership in voluntary associations, independent of group type, is an important predictor of political tolerance. The various processes of democratic socialization that occur within groups apparently enhance tolerance for the civil liberties of non-conformists groups in society such as atheists, homosexuals, militants, and racists. More profoundly, the effects of socialization appear cumulative, as tolerance grows with the number of memberships in different group types. This result suggests that the multiple memberships reported by GSS and CPS respondents are largely overlapping, exposing respondents to a diverse array of people, ideas, and organizational culture. Verba (1965) suggested that a key function of overlapping memberships was to reduce political conflict; in effect such memberships create cross-pressures within the individual that work to moderate political preferences and inculcate cross-cutting solidarities. Our results strongly suggest that political tolerance should be added to the list of favorable consequences of group affiliation-the more diverse group memberships, the more tolerant are attitudes.
Socialization patterns within groups clearly differ. As a consequence, we expected the attitudinal manifestations of group socialization to vary across group type. Though as a whole our results indicated that membership in most group types-relative to non--members-had little effect on political tolerance, membership in some specific ,groups did in fact matter. Memberships in veterans and farm groups, churches, unions, and Greek organizations were all associated with lower levels of tolerance. In this regard our results do point to the potential "dark side" of some voluntary organizations. However, when combined with the estimated effects of the extensiveness of memberships reported, the overall negative influence of these group types appears negligible. That is, the positive effects of membership alone serve to counterbalance the negative impact of membership in a specific group type. On the other hand, respondents reporting membership in literary, professional, political, and cultural organizations experience the additive effects of membership, and membership in specific groups, that contribute positively to political tolerance. Thus while the purported "dark side" of voluntary associations evidently exists, on the whole it does not appear to be a major factor in tolerance attitudes. Still, we need to know much more about the development of political tolerance in specific kinds of voluntary associations.
Overall, however, our findings suggest that it is the isolated citizen who is least likely to develop attitudes of political tolerance. Looking outside of the individual, our research points to the substantial role of social context in generating tolerance attitudes (Gibson 1992b). The broader the involvement of citizens in the associational universe, the more likely is the development of tolerant attitudes. Hence, it is the micro-level experiences of citizens within groups that are important to the attitudes that underpin and help sustain the larger democratic system.
1 It should be noted that in the statistical models to be presented that both the substantive interpretation and statistical significance of the relationship between the number of group memberships and political tolerance were nearly identical when an interval scale was utilized instead of our set of dummy variables.
2 Across the nine surveys utilized, the total number of respondents reporting tolerance attitudes was 8,313. Significant variance in these numbers across the years suggests that GSS often utilized half samples. For example, in 1980, 1217 respondents reported tolerance attitudes. However, in 1987, only 776 respondents reported tolerance attitudes.
3 For example, the traditional Likert scale of 1-extremely liberal-to 7 extremely conservative represents our measure of ideology The values used here are then simply the original scores subtracted by one and divided by six. For the problems associated with standardized coefficients see both King (1986) and Luskin (1991).
4 Though a less restrictive statistical test would have yielded significance for membership numbers estimated as non-significant (for example, a directional one-tail test would make one group membership significant at the p < .08 level, and three memberships would also be significant at p < .06), we prefer the greater confidence in our estimates that stem from application of the more difficult test.
Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ayala, Louis J. 2000. "Trained for Democracy: The Differing Effects of Voluntary and Involuntary Organizations on Political Participation." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 53 (1): 99-115.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 1998. Basic Interest: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Frederick C. Licari. 1989. "Education and Political Tolerance." Testing the Effects of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect." Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 53, No. (3): 285-308.
Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. "Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital." American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 999-1023.
Cigler, Allan J. 1991. "Interest Groups: A Subfield in Search of an Identity." In William Crotty, ed., Political Science: Looking to the Future, vol. 4, pp. 99-136. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Conover, Pamela Johnson. 1991. "Political Socialization." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., The Handbook of Political Science, vol. 2., pp. 93154. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
Coleman, James. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94, (suppl.): S95-5120.
Damico, Alphso J., Margaret M. Conway, and Sandra Bowman Damico. 2000. "Patterns of Political Trust and Mistrust: Three Moments in the Lives of Democratic Citizens." Polity 32: 377-410.
Davis, James A., 1988. "Communism and Cohorts Continued: American Tolerance in 1954 and 1972-1987," GSS Social Change Report No. 30 (Chicago: NORC) available on-line www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/report/s-report/soc30.htm.
Finkel, Steven E., Lee Sigleman, and Stan Humphries. 1999. "Democratic Values and Political Toleration." In John P Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and Lawrence Wrightsman, eds., Measures of Political Attitudes, pp. 203-96. New York: Academic Press.
Gibson, James L. 1992a. "Alternative Measures of Political Tolerance: Must Tolerance be "Least-Liked?" American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 560-77. . 1992b. "The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural Conformity and Political Freedom." American Political Science Review 86 (2): 338-56.
Godwin, R. Kenneth. 1988. One Billion Dollars of Influence. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Green, Donald Philip, and Lisa Michele Waxman. 1987. "Direct Threat and Political Tolerance: An Experimental Analysis of the Tolerance of Blacks Toward Racists." Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 149-65.
Hayes, Michael T. 1983. "Interest Groups: Pluralism or Mass Society." In Allan J. Cigler and Burden A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics, Ist ed., pp. 84100. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Joslyn, Mark R., and Allan J. Cigler. 2001. "Group Involvement and Democratic Orientations: Social Capital in the Post-section Context." Social Science Quarterly 82 (June): 357-68.
King, Gary. 1986. "How Not To Lie with Statistics: Avoiding Common Mistakes in Quantitative Political Science." American Journal of Political Science 30.(3): 666-87.
Ladd, Everett Carl. 2000. The Ladd Report: Startling New Research Show How an Explosion of Voluntary Groups, Activities, and Charitable Donations is Transforming our Towns and Cities. New York: Free Press.
Loomis, Burden A., and Allan J. Cigler. 1998. "The Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics." In Allan J. Cigler and Burden A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics, 5th ed., pp. 1-34. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Luskin, Robert C. 1991. "Abusus non tollit usum: Standardized Coefficients, Correlations, and R2s." American Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 1032-46.
McClosky, H., and A. Brill. 1983. Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe about Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage.
Mitchell, Robert C. 1979. "National Environmental Lobbies and the Illogic of Collective Action." In Clifford Russell, ed., Collective Decisionmaking. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Nunn, Clyde Z., Harry J. Crockett, and J. Allen Williams. 1978. Tolerance for Nonconformity: A National Survey of Americans' Changing Commitment to Civil Liberties. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Putnam, Robert P 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
. 1995a. "Bowling Alone: America's Social Capital." Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65-78.
. 1995b. "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America." Political Science and Politics 28 (4): 664-83.
. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ridout, Travis N., and Rodolfo Espino. 2000. "What Is It About Joining a Group That Makes People Trust Others More?" Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.
Sears, David 0. 1975. "Political Socialization." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., The Handbook of Political Science, vol. 2, pp. 93-154. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Skocpol, Theda. 1999. "Associations Without Members." American Prospect 45: 66-73.
Skocpol, Theda, and Morris P Fiorina, eds. 2000. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Sniderman, P M., P E. Tetlock, P E. Glaser, J. M. Green, and M. Hout. 1989. "Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public." British Journal of Political Science 19 (1): 25-45.
Stimson, James. 1985. "Regression in Space and Time: A Statistical Essay American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 914-47.
Stone, Dietlind. 1998. "Bowling Together, Bowling Alone: The Development of Generalized Trust in Voluntary Associations." Political Psychology 19 (3): 497-525.
Stolle, Dietlind, and Thomas R. Rochon. 1998. "Are All Associations Alike?" American Behavioral Scientist 42 (1): pp. 47-65.
Stouffer, Samuel. 1955. Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. New York: Doubleday.
Sullivan, John., James Piereson, and George E. Marcus. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sullivan, John., George E. Marcus., Stanley Feldman., and James Piereson. 1981. "The Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis." American Political Science Review 75 (1): 92-106.
Truman, David R. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1945. Democracy in America. New York: Vintage Books.
Verba, Sidney 1965. "Organization Membership and Democratic Consensus." Journal of Politics 27 (2): 467-97.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, T. C. 1994. "Trends in Tolerance toward Rightist and Leftist Groups, 1976-1988: Effects of Attitude Change and Cohort Succession. Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (4): 539-56.
ALLAN CIGLER and MARK R. JOSLYN, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
Received: February 5, 2001
Accepted for Publication: April 4, 2001 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
CPS Questions, Response Categories
Tolerance: The scale of tolerance is the sum of the tolerant answers to the following questions. "There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. Consider someone who is openly homosexual. If some people in your community suggested that a book he or she wrote in favor of homosexuality should be taken out of your public library, would you favor removing this book or not? (1 = do not remove book, 0 = remove book). What about someone who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior? If some people in your community suggested that a book he or she wrote arguing that Blacks are genetically inferior should be taken out of your public library, would you favor removing this book or not? (1 = do not remove book, 0 = remove book). Or consider someone who advocates doing away with election and letting the military run the country: should he or she be allowed to or not? (1 = allowed to, 0 = not allowed). And what about someone who is against all churches and religion? If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community, should he or she be allowed to or not? (1 = yes, 0 = no)."
Number of Different Memberships: Respondents were asked whether they were members of each of the following categories of voluntary associations: Service/Fraternal, Veterans, Religious, Nationality/Ethnic, Senior Citizens, Women Rights, Union, Business/ Professional, Political Issue, Civic Non-partisan, Liberal or Conservative, Candidate Party, Youth, Literary/Art/Study, Hobby/Sports/ Leisure, Neighborhood/Homeowners, Charitable/Social Service, Educational, Cultural, Other.
Gender: 1 = female, 0 = male
Age: Chronological age
Education: 1 = less than high school, 2 = high school/GED, 3 = some college, 4 = college graduate, 5 = some grad work and above.
Ideology: We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a scale on which the political views of people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal (1) to extremely conservative (7). Where would you place yourself on this scale?
Income: 16 point scale from less than $5,0000 to $200,000 and above.
Religiosity: How important is religion in your life? 1 = not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important.
Race: 1 = African American, 0 = White
Tolerance: There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. For instance, somebody who is against all churches and religion .... (Atheist).
1. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your (city/town/community) against churches and religion, should he be allowed to speak, or not?
2. Should such a person be allowed to teach in a college or university, or not?
3. If some people in your community suggested that a book he wrote against churches and religion should be taken out of your public library, would you favor removing this book, or not?
Or consider a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior (Racists).
Now, I would like to ask you some questions about a man who admits he is a Communist.
Consider a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country (Militarists).
And what about a man who admits that he is a homosexual?
Answers to the three aforementioned questions are summed for each group, yielding an additive index of political tolerance.
Number of Different Memberships: "Now we would like to know something about the groups or organizations to which individuals belong. Here is a list of various organizations. Could you tell me whether or not you are a member of each type? Fraternal, Service, Veterans, Political, Union, Sports, Youth, School, Hobby, Greek, National, Farm, Literature, Professional, Church, Other.
Gender: 1 = women, 0 = male
Age: Chronological age
Education: a five point scale from less than High School to Advanced degree.
Ideology: Traditional 7 point scale from extremely liberal (1) to extremely conservative (7).
Religiosity: How often does respondent attend religious services 0 = never, 1 = less than once a year, 2 = about once or twice a year, 3 = several times a year, 4 = about once a month, 5 = two-three times a month, 6 = nearly every week, 7 = every week, 8 = several times a week.
South: 1 = South, 0 = other regions.
Income (family) 12 point scale from less than $1000 to $25,000+…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: The Extensiveness of Group Membership and Social Capital: The Impact on Political Tolerance Attitudes. Contributors: Cigler, Allan - Author, Joslyn, Mark R. - Author. Journal title: Political Research Quarterly. Volume: 55. Issue: 1 Publication date: March 2002. Page number: 7+. © 2002 Political Research Quarterly. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.