Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum

keersmaecker, Jonas De; Bostyn, Dries H.; Hiel, Alain Van

doi:10.1177/1948550619896168

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Those who are better able to think carefully about things are more likely to reflect on the different pros and cons and arrive at a balanced conclusion. Research has shown that despite one’s positive or negative group feelings, people with a higher cognitive ability are more in favor of tolerating speech for all social-ideological groups (De Keersmaecker et al, 2021).…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Verkuyten¹,

Adelman²,

Yogeeswaran³

2022

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Verkuyten¹,

Adelman²,

Yogeeswaran³

2022

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, while De Keersmaecker et al. (2021) confirmed prior observations that higher intelligence was associated with liking some groups and disliking others, they found intelligence nevertheless positively predicted the endorsement of freedom of speech for all groups, even those for whom intelligence negatively predicted affect. This is certainly suggestive of a positive role for intelligence in predicting tolerance, but unfortunately De Keersmaecker et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…This is certainly suggestive of a positive role for intelligence in predicting tolerance, but unfortunately De Keersmaecker et al. 's (2021) analyses were limited by the second and third considerations noted above. That is, when analyzing free speech endorsement, De Keersmaecker et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of political tolerance

Rasmussen

Ludeke

2021

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Despite the broad appeal of abstract notions of political tolerance, people vary in the degree to which they support the political rights of groups they dislike. Prior research highlighted the relevance of individual differences in the cognitive domain, claiming the application of general tolerance ideals to specific situations is a cognitively demanding task. Curiously, this work has overwhelmingly focused on differences in cognitive style, largely neglecting differences in cognitive ability, despite compelling conceptual linkages. We remedy this shortcoming. Methods We explore diverse predictors of tolerance using survey data in two large samples from Denmark (N = 805) and the United States (N = 1,603). Results Cognitive ability was the single strongest predictor of political tolerance, with larger effects than education, openness to experience, ideology, and threat. The cognitively demanding nature of tolerance judgments was further supported by results showing cognitive ability predicted tolerance best when extending such tolerance was hardest. Additional small‐sample panel results demonstrated substantial 4‐year stability of political tolerance, informing future work on the origins of political tolerance. Conclusions Our observation of a potent role for cognitive ability in tolerance supports cognitively oriented accounts of tolerance judgments and highlights the need for further exploration of cognitive ability within the political domain.

show abstract

“…Интеллектуальная скромность снижает эффект воспринимаемой непохожести аутгруппы на предрассудки по отношению к ней [6]. Связь когнитивных способностей и поддержки свободы слова политических оппонентов опосредована интеллектуальной скромностью [17]. Респонденты с низким уровнем интеллектуальной скромности более склонны принижать интеллектуальные способности и негативно отзываться о моральном облике своих оппонентов, в меньшей степени готовы дружить с ними, в том числе «френдиться» в социальных сетях [34].…”

Section: интеллектуальная скромность потребность в когнитивной завершенности и радикализацияunclassified

“I Know that I don’t Know Anything”. Socio-Cognitive Antecedents of the Radicalization

Хухлаев

Pavlova

2021

Social Psychology and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Analysis of the relationship between loss of personal significance, intellectual humility, the need for cognitive closure, and support for radicalisation. Background. Psychological studies of the process of radicalization make a significant contribution to the explanation of this negative socio-political phenomenon. One of the questions from these studies is how cognitive rigidity is related to ideological extremism. Study design. The study examined the relationship between loss of personal significance, intellectual humility, and support for radical views mediated by the need for cognitive closure. The presence and nature of the relationship were checked using a path analysis performed in the AMOS 23 program. Participants. 365 residents from Russia (78.5% women), age from 20 to 66 years (M=42.11; SD=11.62). The majority of the sample has a higher education (94.1%), the rest have secondary or specialized secondary education. 41.8% of the respondents identified themselves as Christians, 17.8% as Agnostics, 11.7% as atheists, 10.1% as Muslims, the rest-as other faiths or chose to skip this item of the questionnaire. Measurements. Russian-language versions of the short scale of scales of the need for cognitive closure by D. Webber and A. Kruglansky; the scale of intellectual humility by M. Leary et al. and the scale of loss of personal significance. A questionnaire for assessing support for radical violence. Results. The direct effect of loss of personal importance on the support of radical views is mediated by the need for cognitive closure. The reverse effect of intellectual humility on the support of radical views is mediated by the need for cognitive completeness. Conclusions. The study demonstrates the significance of the “cognitive vulnerability” of supporting extremist ideology, which is extremely important for understanding the personal aspects of both radicalization and deradicalization.

show abstract

Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of political tolerance

“I Know that I don’t Know Anything”. Socio-Cognitive Antecedents of the Radicalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About