ScholarGate
Get started
Process / pipelinePolitical PsychologyDemocratic-valuesPipeline

Political Tolerance Scale

Also known as: DTCL, Civil Liberties Scale, Majoritarian Constraint Scale

OriginatorSamuel Stouffer, James Gibson, John SullivanYear1955Sources3Related methods4

The Political Tolerance Scale measures willingness to permit unpopular groups to exercise civil liberties and political rights, including free speech, assembly, and voting rights even for groups the respondent strongly opposes. Pioneered by Stouffer (1955) measuring tolerance of communists during McCarthyism and extended by Gibson (1989) and Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (1982), the scale assesses fundamental democratic commitment—that pluralism and minority rights supersede majoritarian preference. It addresses the paradox: can democracy survive if majorities vote to restrict minority rights? Tolerance is essential for democratic stability, particularly as polarization increases.

Key highlights

  • Clear theoretical focus on key democratic tension: majority rule vs. minority protection. Directly measures whether respondents uphold universal rights principle.
  • Strong external validity: tolerance of opposition predicts (r=0.70-0.80) actual rights protections in democracies; countries with low average tolerance experience political repression and democratic erosion.
  • Adapts to local context: choosing 'least-liked group' contextually (communists in 1950s USA, Islamists in current Netherlands, etc.) makes scale responsive to real political cleavages.
  • Reveals asymmetric tolerance: both left and right report tolerating their own side while intolerant of the other, exposing partisan bias in universalist claims.

Intuition

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

How it works

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

When to use it

Use Political Tolerance Scale in studies of democratic consolidation and stability, evaluations of civil liberties enforcement, analysis of majoritarian threats to minority rights, comparative research examining protection of political opposition, studies of polarization and its effects on tolerating opponents, and assessments of whether education increases tolerance. Appropriate for general adult populations and politically aware youth (16+). Particularly valuable in newly democratized or fragile democracies where tolerance of opposition determines regime stability. Can identify populations vulnerable to supporting authoritarian suppression of rights.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Clear theoretical focus on key democratic tension: majority rule vs. minority protection. Directly measures whether respondents uphold universal rights principle.
  • Strong external validity: tolerance of opposition predicts (r=0.70-0.80) actual rights protections in democracies; countries with low average tolerance experience political repression and democratic erosion.
  • Adapts to local context: choosing 'least-liked group' contextually (communists in 1950s USA, Islamists in current Netherlands, etc.) makes scale responsive to real political cleavages.
  • Reveals asymmetric tolerance: both left and right report tolerating their own side while intolerant of the other, exposing partisan bias in universalist claims.
Limitations
  • Inconsistency between stated and revealed preference: respondents claim tolerance in surveys but vote for authoritarian parties or restrict opposition in actual elections; attitude-behavior gap substantial.
  • Partisan asymmetry in group selection: which group is 'least-liked' varies by respondent; comparing tolerance across respondents requires standardizing target group.
  • Social desirability bias: civil liberties are normatively valued in democracies, leading respondents to overstate tolerance. Anonymous administration reduces but doesn't eliminate bias.
  • Single-dimension limitation: may conflate tolerance for speech, assembly, voting, and office-holding which are empirically distinct (many permit speech but not office-holding).

Common pitfalls

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Applications

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Frequently asked

Is political tolerance declining in democracies?

Mixed evidence. In USA, tolerance of communists increased from 30% (1954) to 50-60% (2000s), then stability. However, tolerance of disliked extremists may be declining: tolerance of communists increased but tolerance of right-wing extremists has not similarly increased among left-leaning respondents. Asymmetric tolerance increasing: conservatives intolerant of 'socialists,' liberals intolerant of 'fascists,' with each side claiming the other is uniquely threatening.

Why do people who defend free speech vote for authoritarian leaders?

Inconsistency between abstract principles and specific targets. Respondents support 'free speech in principle' but make exceptions for groups they view as dangerous, dishonest, or un-American. Also, perception shift: supporters of authoritarian leaders may not perceive them as threatening to free speech (believing false claims that opposition suppresses rights); once authoritarian consolidates power, citizens rationalize rights restrictions.

Does education increase political tolerance?

Modestly. Educated citizens score slightly higher on tolerance (r = 0.25-0.35) but relationship is complex. Education taught to support civil liberties in principle, but educated elites also develop sophisticated justifications for restricting enemies ('dangerous propaganda,' 'incitement'). Strongest tolerance comes from combination of education + exposure to diverse perspectives + non-threatening perception of opposition.

Can you be intolerant and still be a democrat?

Technically yes, but problematically. If majorities vote to restrict minority rights, and this is respected (majority rule), then intolerant democracy emerges—'tyranny of the majority.' Genuine democracy requires tolerating opposition even when majority dislikes them. Intolerant majorities can destabilize democracy through rights restrictions, creating grievance and delegitimizing system. Many democracies have constitutional or institutional 'counter-majoritarian' protections (courts, bill of rights) restricting majority power to suppress minorities, suggesting democracies institutionalize tolerance when public doesn't provide it.

Sources

  1. 1.
    Stouffer, S. A. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its mind. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stouffer%2C%20S.%20A.%20(1955).%20Communism%2C%20conformity%2C%20and%20civil%20liberties%3A%20A%20cross-section%20of%20the%20nation%20speaks%20its%20mind.%20Garde
  2. 2.
    Gibson, J. L. (1989). Understanding the tolerant: A latent variable model of support for civil liberties in the Soviet Union. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 797-825.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Understanding+the+tolerant%3A+A+latent+variable+model+of+support+for+civil+liberties+in+the+Soviet+Union+Gibson
  3. 3.
    Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sullivan%2C%20J.%20L.%2C%20Piereson%2C%20J.%2C%20%26%20Marcus%2C%20G.%20E.%20(1982).%20Political%20tolerance%20and%20American%20democracy.%20Chicago%3A%20University%20o

You have read it. What now?

Ask about this methodSimilar methods

Cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Political Tolerance Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/political-psychology/political-tolerance-scale

Political Tolerance Scale | ScholarGate