Being tolerated as a minority group member: an experimental study with virtual teams.

Research on the experience of being tolerated has focused on single events, ignoring the important question of whether the experience of being tolerated depends on previous experiences. We examined whether the experience of being tolerated has a negative impact on minority team members depending on whether they had previously been rejected or fully accepted. In a pre-registered study with 440 participants, we used a recently developed experimental paradigm to simulate workstyle minority status in virtual teams. These participants were randomly assigned to experience rejection or acceptance followed by being tolerated. Experiencing tolerance after rejection was strongly positive, reducing negative well-being, increasing positive future expectations about interactions with majority team members, and reducing people's intention to withdraw from their teams. By contrast, experiencing tolerance after acceptance was weakly but consistently negative, with increased negative well-being, increased negative future expectations, and increased withdrawal intentions. Lastly, despite tolerance being more harmful than acceptance, that harmfulness did not translate into greater willingness to raise one's voice and express discontent about not being valued.

The unintended consequences of tolerance: The experience and repercussions of being tolerated for minority group members.

Tolerance as forbearance implies the decision to not interfere when others engage in actions or beliefs that you disapprove of. This allows minorities to live the life that they want, despite the disapproval. However, the undercurrent of disapproval which comes with tolerance might carry unintended negative consequences for tolerated minorities. The present research utilizes a novel experimental method to give participants an experience of being tolerated to address two key questions: 1) what are the consequences of being tolerated on personal well-being? 2) how does the experience of being tolerated affect future expectations and willingness to raise one's voice? Across four studies with American and Dutch participants (N = 1,758), we find that being tolerated leads to less positive outcomes on well-being than being accepted (although more positive implications relative to being rejected). Further, being tolerated reduces the expectation of being valued in future encounters while simultaneously tamping down on people's willingness to raise their voice against those who begrudgingly include them.

Intolerance of Transgressive Protest Actions: The Differential Roles of Deontological and Utilitarian Morality.

The current research examines intolerance of protest actions by focusing on two major questions: (a) How intolerant are people of transgressive protest actions of their least-liked versus most-liked groups? and (b) how do individual differences in deontological and utilitarian moral predisposition relate to intolerance of transgressive protest actions by these two groups? In two survey-embedded experiments using nationally representative samples from two West European countries (Germany, Netherlands), we found that people were overwhelmingly intolerant of morally transgressive protest actions by both their most-liked and least-liked groups, although slightly less so for the former. In addition, deontological moral predisposition was related to increased intolerance of protest actions regardless of whether it was committed by a most-liked or least-liked group. Individual difference in utilitarian moral predisposition was related to increased acceptance of protest actions regardless of group, but especially when the actions were perceived as serving the greater good.

Deliberative thinking increases tolerance of minority group practices: Testing a dual-process model of tolerance.

Tolerance of minority beliefs and practices is typically considered a critical ingredient for an equal and diverse society. Psychologically, people can use both intuitive and deliberative cognitive sources to make tolerance judgments. Following dual-process theories, this research uses survey experiments to manipulate intuitive versus deliberative thinking to examine whether deliberative thinking increases tolerance of minority practices. Across three studies using nationally representative samples of Dutch majority members (N = 1,811), we find that deliberative thinking increases tolerance, regardless of whether people deliberate over pragmatic or principled reasons for accepting contested minority practices and social changes. These findings are similar across a range of minority practices and robust across gender, age, educational level, and political orientation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Distinguishing Active and Passive Outgroup Tolerance: Understanding Its Prevalence and the Role of Moral Concern.

Tolerance, the acceptance of disapproved conduct of others, is considered an indispensable feature of diverse societies. Yet tolerance can be expressed in one of two distinct ways, which is not reflected in the literature. In one way, tolerance is passive and involves suppressing the inclination to interfere with the disapproved conduct of others. In the other way, tolerance is active and involves endorsing the ability of others to engage in a disapproved practice. Using two nationally representative samples of Dutch majority members and eight scenarios involving real-world debates about the accommodation of Muslim minority practices, we find that while a significant minority of people engage in passive tolerance toward disapproved outgroup practices, very few people are willing to engage in active tolerance by proactively supporting disapproved practices. Furthermore, we also find that people who have stronger moral concerns about particular minority practices are less willing to engage in either active or passive tolerance. These results emerged both in contexts where Muslim minority practices had a direct impact on one's personal life as well as those that impacted on society as a whole. Collectively, these results illustrate two different forms of tolerance and the influence of moral concern in tolerance.

Tolerance as forbearance: Overcoming intuitive versus deliberative objections to cultural, religious, and ideological differences.

Tolerance is widely considered to be a key response to the challenge of managing diversity in pluralistic societies. However, tolerance comes in a number of different forms with distinct psychological profiles and societal implications. Drawing on research from political science, philosophy, sociology, and several subdisciplines within psychology, we discuss tolerance as a process of forbearance, which has received little attention in psychology. We propose a dual-process model of moral reasoning to differentiate between two distinct forms of tolerance and intolerance: intuitive and deliberative. Specifically, intuitive tolerance results from gut-level objection toward difference that is overridden (or not, in the case of intolerance) by more careful processing of the reasons to tolerate. By contrast, deliberative tolerance involves reflective thinking in which there is a weighing of one's reasonable objection to dissenting conduct against reasons to nevertheless tolerate, leading either to tolerance or intolerance. We further consider individual differences and situational factors that influence threat versus adjustment responses to living with diversity. Finally, we consider cultural differences involved in tolerance before exploring the implications of different meanings of tolerance and intolerance for living with cultural, religious, and ideological diversity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

With rhyme and reason: Recognizing reasons for disliked practices increases tolerance.

Disapproval of others' beliefs and practices is an inevitable consequence of living with diversity, and the ability to tolerate, or put up with, these differences is crucial to maintain a functional society. Considering reasons to condone what one disapproves of is considered a key aspect of tolerance. Across three national samples (N = 1,708), the current research examines how recognizing arguments to support practices that one disapproves of increases tolerance. Studies 1-2 demonstrate that when participants generate arguments to support Muslim minority practices (Study 1) and Orthodox Protestant minority practices (Study 2), they disapprove of, they show increased tolerance towards such practices in society. In Study 3, the importance of considerations is experimentally extended by demonstrating that perceiving objectionable behaviour as more reasonable increases tolerance. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the importance of engaging in and perceiving reasonable considerations to enhance tolerance of dissenting beliefs or practices.

Being tolerated: Implications for well-being among ethnic minorities.

Tolerating or condoning practices that one finds objectionable is typically considered a positive way to negotiate intergroup differences. However, being the target of tolerance might harm well-being, which we examined in three studies (a survey and two experiments) among a total of 1,054 members of various racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States. In Study 1, we found that perceiving oneself to be tolerated on the basis of one's ethnic group membership was associated with more negative well-being. In Study 2, we found that bringing to mind experiences of being tolerated results in less positive and more negative affect than thinking about experiences of acceptance, but more positive and less negative outcomes than thinking about overt discrimination experiences. In Study 3, we replicated the results of Study 2 while demonstrating that threat to social identity needs mediates the tolerance-well-being link. These results suggest that being tolerated is related to minority targets' well-being in ways that are intermediate between being treated with outright discrimination and full acceptance, but that being tolerated follows a pattern closer to discrimination.

Moralization and moral trade-offs explain (in)tolerance of Muslim minority behaviours.

How do people decide whether specific minority behaviours should or should not be tolerated in society? The current research investigates the role of moralization in tolerance of Muslim minority behaviours that differ in their level of perceived normative dissent with four national samples of majority group members in the Netherlands and Germany (N = 3628). Study 1 revealed that behaviours perceived as more normatively dissenting were increasingly moralized and tolerated less. In Studies 2 and 3, we found that more normatively dissenting behaviours prompted people to prioritize the moral value of social cohesion over freedom and become less tolerant. Finally, Study 4 shows that priming the moral value of religious freedom decreases intolerance of a highly dissenting Muslim minority practice. Taken together, these studies reveal that moralization and value prioritizing can be associated with either intolerance or tolerance of minority behaviours depending on the perceived normative dissenting nature of these behaviours.

Accepting Muslim minority practices: A case of discriminatory or normative intolerance?

West European societies have seen strong debates about the acceptance of Muslim minority practices. In the current research we sought to better understand intolerance by examining whether people use a double standard in which the same practices are tolerated of Christians but not of Muslims (discriminatory intolerance), or rather reject the practices independently of the religious minority group because these are considered to contradict society's normative ways of life (normative intolerance). The results of two survey-embedded experiments among native Dutch were most in agreement with an interpretation in terms of normative intolerance rather than discriminatory intolerance. This suggests that the rejection of Muslim practices has less to do with Muslims per se but rather with the perceived normative deviance of the practices, independently of the religious minority group. These findings broaden the research on anti-Muslim sentiments and thereby the debate on the place of Islam within Western liberal societies.

Prejudice and the Acceptance of Muslim Minority Practices: A Person-Centered Approach.

Growing Muslim minorities in Western societies has sparked debate about which Muslim practices should be accepted, with many people finding certain practices intolerable. Two competing perspectives on this intolerance argue that it represents either principled objections or prejudice. Using four large samples from the Netherlands, we apply latent profile analysis and find four groups of people: two groups that like and dislike Muslims and their practices respectively, but also two groups who are intolerant of some or most Muslim practices without necessarily displaying prejudice. A person-centered analysis of key demographic and psychological variables suggests that the two intolerant groups differ with one group's intolerance motivated more by anti-Muslim feelings, while the second group's intolerance is motivated more by principled objections.

The Negative Implications of Being Tolerated: Tolerance From the Target's Perspective.

Intergroup toleration is a requirement for living with diversity and actively promoted by local, national, and international bodies. However, although psychological researchers have extensively considered the implications of being discriminated, little is known about the psychological consequences of being tolerated. In this article, we argue that beyond the freedoms implied by tolerance, being "merely" tolerated also implies social identity threats that compromise specific psychological needs (belongingness, esteem, control, certainty). We further consider the psychological consequences of being tolerated at the personal, interpersonal, and intergroup levels and consider factors that may moderate the impact of being tolerated for minority outcomes. Taken together, this work provides the first theoretical argument and overview of what it means to be tolerated by considering the negative implications of toleration in diverse nations.

Toleration and prejudice-reduction: Two ways of improving intergroup relations.

While a large body of social psychological research has shed light on the nature of prejudice and how to reduce it, we argue that such work does not address situations of cultural or religious outgroup beliefs and practices that are considered incompatible with one's own. The present theoretical article contrasts a prejudice-reduction approach with a toleration-based approach to consider the differences each have with regard to the attitude object they focus upon, the perceived reasonableness of the attitude, and the behavioral consequences each may lead to. In doing so, we consider the psychological processes involved in whether the negative attitude leads to negative actions. We conclude by arguing that a toleration-based approach forms an important addition to the psychological thinking about cultural diversity and intergroup relations. Collectively, the present work makes a novel contribution to the social psychological literature by stimulating theory development and raising novel questions for empirical research.

Rules of engagement: Reactions to internal and external criticism in public debate.

Since 2014, the refugee crisis has launched a political shockwave across Europe, with consequences for the European Union, the Schengen Zone, and national politics. Within this context, we investigated how public statements about the refugee crisis are received. While debate and criticism are hallmarks of a democratic society, research demonstrates that people respond more negatively to criticism about their group from an outsider compared with an insider. But does this reflect a protective bias in favour of one's own group, or a more principled position against criticism from outsiders independently of one's own group membership? In three experimental studies, people apply the principle of preferring internal over external criticism, even to the point of penalizing in-group members who criticized outgroups. This preference for internal over external criticism is guided by perceptions that internal critics are more constructive and more expert than external critics.

Challenges to Traditional Narratives of Intractable Conflict Decrease Ingroup Glorification.

Conflict narratives are cornerstones of group identity, but often facilitate violence by framing the group's actions in ways that foster defensive forms of group identification (i.e., glorification). Three experiments tested whether alternative narratives inclusive of the ingroup's and the adversarial group's suffering can reduce glorification. Israeli Jews (Study 1) and Americans (Study 2) reported less glorification after reading inclusive narratives rather than narratives that dismiss the outgroup's suffering. Study 3 found that through reducing glorification, inclusive narratives indirectly weakened support for retributive justice and militaristic policies and strengthened support for reconciliation. These effects were specific to people high in both (preexisting) glorification and attachment-people identified by prior research as the strongest supporters of violent approaches to conflict. These findings suggest that alternative narratives can reduce glorification by challenging the myopic focus of traditional conflict narratives on ingroup victimization, helping societies move beyond intractable conflict toward lasting peace.

Intergroup Toleration and Its Implications for Culturally Diverse Societies.

In recent decades, tolerance has been proposed as a necessary response to the global rise in cultural and religious diversity. Tolerance is widely embraced in community, national, and international policies, in relation to many types of differences between people and groups. However, in both public and academic discourse, the notion of tolerance appears to have various meanings, which limits our ability to create, evaluate, and implement effective policies. To discuss various policy implications of toleration, we first consider the concept of toleration and its difference from prejudice. We then discuss existing research on intergroup tolerance, the importance of perspective taking, the asymmetry of tolerance, and the boundaries of toleration. Subsequently, we discuss research that indicates that the discourse of tolerance can function as a dimension of intergroup comparison that leads to acceptance or rejection of cultural and religious minority groups. Furthermore, we consider the depoliticized effects that tolerance discourse might have and the possible negative psychological consequences for groups that are tolerated in society. Gaps in existing knowledge are considered and policy implications are explored throughout.

Effect of Threat and Social Identity on Reactions to Ingroup Criticism: Defensiveness, Openness, and a Remedy.

Openness to criticism and dissenting opinions is enormously important to group decision-making. Past research has found that people are more persuaded by criticism of their group when it comes from fellow ingroup members rather than outgroup members. But this ingroup advantage is not boundless. Three experiments demonstrate that the ingroup advantage related to openness to criticism is erased when perceivers feel their group is under threat. The results further suggest that the psychological mechanism underlying defensive responses to criticism is attributional-Threat elicits greater suspicion of ingroup critics' motives, which eliminates the ingroup critic's advantage relative to outgroup critics. A final experiment tests an intervention designed to increase openness to criticism and finds that reminders of the importance of dissent and free speech emerge as an effective remedy to increase the persuasiveness of criticism despite high threat.

A Whole Other Story: Inclusive Victimhood Narratives Reduce Competitive Victimhood and Intergroup Hostility.

Conflict narratives, having at their core the belief that the ingroup suffered more than the outgroup (competitive victimhood), are key in maintaining conflicts. Three experiments conducted with Jewish Israelis (Study 1), Turkish Kurds (Study 2), and Americans (Study 3) tested whether conflict narratives can reduce conflict. Studies 1 and 3 showed that people respond to inclusive victimhood narratives that emphasize both ingroup and outgroup suffering with a reduction in competitive victimhood and, in turn, reduced support for aggressive policies-but only when people were relatively less concerned that acknowledgment of outgroup suffering might risk loss of third-party support. Study 2 further found that inclusive narratives reduce conflict for low-power groups, yet without being moderated by concern. Together, these studies show that inclusive victimhood narratives can reduce conflict when people are not concerned about losing third-party support. The important role of third parties in conflict resolution is discussed.

In the eyes of the beholder: National identification predicts differential reactions to ethnic identity expressions.

Two studies examined how perceivers' national identification influences their implicit and explicit attitudes toward White and non-White ethnic groups whose members express their ethnic identity overtly in public or discreetly in private spaces. Results revealed that at a conscious level, White American perceivers' national identification elicited more negative attitudes toward both White and non-White ethnic groups when members embraced their ethnic heritage in public rather than in private. However, at an unconscious level, White perceivers' identification with the national group led to less favorable attitudes toward non-White ethnic groups, but not White ethnic groups, when their group members embraced ethnic identity in public. By integrating research on national identification, ethnic identity expression, and prejudice, the present research highlights some conditions under which majority group members' national identification affects how they perceive ethnic subgroups within the nation.