Religious Value Priming, Threat, and Political Tolerance

• Published date: 01 December 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912912471203
• Author: Brian R. Calfano,Paul A. Djupe
• Date: 01 December 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

471203PRQXXX10.1177/1065912912471203P
olitical Research QuarterlyDjupe and Calfano
Article
Political Research Quarterly
66(4) 768 –780
Religious Value Priming, Threat,
© 2012 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and Political Tolerance
DOI: 10.1177/1065912912471203
prq.sagepub.com
Paul A. Djupe1 and Brian R. Calfano2
Abstract
The exploration of the religious underpinnings of intolerance has long focused on the effects of religious behaviors
and beliefs, but has ignored a variety of important facets of the religious experience that should bear on tolerance
judgments: elite communication, religious values about how the world should be ordered, and social networks in
churches. We focus on the communication of religious values and argue specifically that values should affect threat
judgments and thus affect tolerance judgments indirectly. We test these assertions using data gathered in a survey
experiment and find that priming exclusive religious values augments threat and thus reduces tolerance.
Keywords
tolerance, religion and politics, values, experiments
There is a time and place for fear and righteous
common to hear from such figures as Rick Warren of
indignation . . . But fear and anger inherently limit
Saddleback Church that “I think God likes variety. There’s
understanding and compassion. Now is the time for
value in that. We should enjoy our differences” (Warren
us to mature into a movement that is expanding its
2006), and to hear from parishioners at churches, such as
goals and striving to reach those goals in positive
Joel Hunter’s Northland church in Florida, that “He pushed
ways rather than limiting ourselves to being against
us out [into the community]. It’s not a church that wants to
a handful of negative trends.
gather you in with people of the same mind-set” (Fitzgerald
2008). Hearing speech like this suggests that the content of
—Rev. Joel Hunter 2008, 20 (emphasis in original)
elite communication may be an important variable to con-
sider given how closely these concepts relate to the group
boundaries that shape tolerance judgments. Moreover, the
If 2004 represented a new high water mark of evangelical
level of religiosity in such churches is unlikely to be differ-
influence in American politics with the reelection of
ent from that in old religious right churches, highlighting
George W. Bush and the passage of antigay rights amend-
that the particular values advanced in churches may be
ments in the states, then the flood waters appear to have
orthogonal to traditional measures of religiosity, at least
greatly receded since. Formerly prominent Christian con-
within religious traditions.
servative leaders have passed from the scene, and a new
Thus, in this article, we explore the effect of the pro-
crop of leaders, several of whom pastor megachurches,
motion of inclusive versus exclusive religious values on
have emerged to speak for a new evangelicalism. While
perceptions of threat and political tolerance of least-liked
the movement’s scope and theological legitimacy are
groups. First, we discuss previous treatments of reli-
debatable, its potential political ramifications are likely
gion’s effect on tolerance and focus more attention on
not. Of particular interest to political tolerance scholars
factors either ignored or crudely operationalized in the
are the language and political positions adopted by “new
literature’s treatment of religion—elite communication,
evangelical” leaders like Rick Warren, Rich Cizik, Bill
religious values, and social networks. We also hone in on
Hybels, Joel Hunter, Rob Bell, Sam Rodriguez, and Jim
Wallis (Fitzgerald 2008; Garofoli 2009).
1Denison University, Granville, OH, USA
Their language is consciously inclusive, pluralistic, and
2Missouri State University, Springfield, USA
bridge building. It varies considerably from the rhetoric of
Corresponding Author:
the old religious right leadership, who “have . . . done their
Paul A. Djupe, Department of Political Science, Denison University,
best to see that evangelicals continue to regard themselves
Granville, OH 43023, USA.
as an embattled subculture” (Fitzgerald 2008). Instead, it is
Email: djupe@denison.edu

---

Djupe and Calfano
769
the effect of religious experience on threat by proposing
religion’s relationship to prejudice has been shown to rely
that threat should play a more prominent role in theoriz-
heavily on the presence of authoritarianism (Laythe et al.
ing about the connection between religion and tolerance.
2002; see also Canetti et al. 2009). Relatedly, others place
We discuss the extent to which the values of concern are
emphasis on the views of God individuals have. Those
communicated across American religious groups and
who believe in a wrathful God are more likely to be intol-
then report on survey experiment results from data con-
erant (Froese, Bader, and Smith 2008).
ducted around Springfield, Missouri, in December 2009
Religious practice, most often captured by high atten-
to March 2010. Using these data, we show that exposure
dance in fundamentalist churches, can also lead to intoler-
to inclusive values encourages people to reduce the sense
ance by encouraging religious individuals to remain
of threat they feel from the group they most dislike,
cloistered in cohesive social groups without exposure to
which fuels tolerance of their political presence.
dissonant beliefs (Green et al. 1994, 32; Reimer and Park
2001, 736; though see Neiheisel, Djupe, and Sokhey
Religion and Tolerance
2009). This sequestered atmosphere is the opposite of the
cosmopolitan lifestyle associated with more secular indi-
To be sure, exploring the effect of religion on tolerance is
viduals that feeds tolerant attitudes (Green et al. 1994, 29).
well-trodden ground. From the earliest to the most recent
There are problems facing this collection of work that
studies, researchers have found that religious attributes of
Eisenstein (2006) details: (1) the religion measures used
the believer are important correlates of the tolerance of
across studies are variable, (2) studies focused on reli-
disliked and least-liked groups. Stouffer’s (1955) seminal
gious effects often lack controls suggested by other toler-
work did not distinguish between religious beliefs and
ance studies, (3) the samples are occasionally not of the
practice and focused on the difference between attenders
general population but of elites, and (4) the statistical
and nonattenders. Further work emphasizes the differ-
methods used may not be state of the art. When Eisenstein
ence between beliefs and behaviors, generally using the
attempts to correct for these inadequacies, she finds a
definition of religion as consisting of belonging, believ-
mild positive effect on tolerance from religiosity, no
ing, and behaving (the “3B” approach—Kellstedt et al.
effect from doctrinal orthodoxy, and weak indirect effects
1996; Layman 2000; Steensland et al. 2000).
from both through other variables.1 One finding of note is
Few vest explanatory power in religious traditions,
that doctrinal orthodoxy has weak effects boosting threat
themselves, but look to variance in religious beliefs and
perceptions.
behaviors to explain tolerance judgments. Most of this
Gibson (2010) agrees with Eisenstein’s characteriza-
research finds that fundamentalist Christians who regard
tion of the literature’s weaknesses, but comes to different
the Bible as the literal word of God hold a set of beliefs
conclusions. Using a “religious traditionalism” measure
that strongly influence their political tolerance judgments
that sums highly religious responses to a variety of behav-
(Wilcox, Jelen, and Leege 1993, 85), encouraging them
ior and belief items, Gibson finds a weak relationship
to reject unbiblical lifestyles such as homosexuality
with intolerance that persists in the face of a powerful set
(Reimer and Park 2001, 736). While some studies mea-
of controls. Admitting that traditionalism also affects tol-
sure dogmatism separately (Eisenstein 2006; Gibson
erance through dogmatism, he finds no evidence that tra-
2010), most argue that dogmatic religious beliefs lead to
ditionalism affects threat perceptions.
intolerance because they are unlikely to accept other
Still, at least four things are missing from even these
beliefs and lifestyles they find contrary to the Bible
most recent studies, and all relate primarily to the con-
(Gibson and Tedin 1988; Jelen and Wilcox 1990; Layman
ception of religious experience. First, the 3B approach
2000; Reimer and Park 2001, 736; Robinson 2010; Smidt
makes reference to social settings of religion through the
and Penning 1982; Steensland et al. 2000; Wilcox 1987;
highly aggregated dummy variables of religious tradi-
Wilcox and Jelen 1990; Wilcox and Robinson 2010; but
tions, but it lacks any explicit operationalization of expo-
see Eisenstein 2006, 2008).
sure to communication in religious organizations relevant
Dogmatism is not the only religious belief mechanism
to tolerance judgments. The effect of information is one
affecting tolerance. Religious people may place a higher
of the preoccupations of the more general tolerance lit-
value on authority, which groups with unconventional
erature (e.g., Marcus et al. 1995; Mutz 2002), so work
views and practices may be seen to undermine (Owen,
along this line helps to bring...