Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Conditional Effect of Network Diversity and Values on Tolerance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While recent literature reports that network diversity generates tolerance, empirical data suggest that in Israel, a highly diverse country, tolerance has been in scarce supply. The well-documented importance of personal value preferences (specifically, openness to change vs. conservation and self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement) in producing tolerant views leads us to hypothesize that values function as boundary conditions mitigating the impact of network diversity upon both political and social tolerance. Building on a representative survey conducted in Israel in 2011, we show that diversity contributes to tolerance more when people are open-minded; when conservatives encounter dissimilar attitudes, they are either less affected or respond with increased intolerance. Secondly, those who highly regard the opinions of others and express an individual predisposition for self-transcendence at the expense of self-enhancement are affected by network diversity to a greater extent. Further, the effect of diversity on tolerance is mediated by the perceived threat from the relevant group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Aggregate level diversity measures also suggest that Israel is relatively high on cultural and ethnic fractionalization (Alesina et al. 2003; Fearon 2003). For example, the odds that two people selected randomly in Israel speak different languages exceeds 55 %, and the odds that they belong to different ethnic and religious groups are over 34 % each. Also note that 60  % of Israelis are immigrants of the first or second generation, and the nation's people speak 34 languages and belong to several distinct religions and ethnicities (see data on the Central Bureau of Statistics 2012. Source: http://surveys.cbs.gov.il/Survey/surveyAlt.htm).

  2. Further, while Israeli Jews remain least tolerant toward the Arab parties (Shamir and Sagiv-Schifter 2006), there is suggestive evidence based on previous research (Gibson 2006) that the public does not equate Arab political forces and the Arab social group. In our data, for instance, political tolerance towards one’s least-liked group for those that named Arab parties as their least liked group (n = 169) is .38, while the level of tolerance toward Arabs as a social group among the same subsample (n = 163) reaches .51, a statistically significant effect.

  3. The Arab population in Israel numbers approximately 1.658 million residents, about 20.7 % of the country’s population, see Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2013n/11_13_097e.pdf.

  4. The choice to focus on Schwartz’s values is informed by scholarship which established a conceptual and empirical difference between personality traits and values in the study of tolerance (Schwartz et al 2010; Caprara et al 2006; Roccas et al 2002). Traits explain one’s behavior, while values are used both to explain behavior and to justify choices, such that “values and not traits serve as standards for judging the behavior of self and others” (Roccas et al 2002:790). As cognitive representations of motivations in the form of goals and objectives manifested in goal directed acts, values were found to be better predictors of attitudes and behaviors over which individuals have cognitive control or choice (Roccas et al 2002; Caprara et al 2006:22), while traits should be better predictors of spontaneous, intuitive, and emotionally driven behaviors. With regards to tolerance, cross-cultural evidence suggests that tolerance is an explicitly learned attitude that depends on socialization experiences rather than an intuitive emotion or a genetic predisposition, and should thus be directed by one’s core values (Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton 2007). Still, we view personality and values as two intimately interconnected concepts. For instance, “people born with a high need for arousal are likely to develop the trait of excitement-seeking as well as to value stimulation and devalue security” (Rocass et al. 2002: 791). Further, some traits are conceptually comparable to values—such as the Big Five trait “openness to experience” and the values dimension “openness to change” employed in this study. Thus, potentially traits and values should both play a role in conditioning the effect of discussion networks.

  5. For the use of data, we are indebted to Michal Shamir.

  6. Rescaling variables to vary 0–1 is a standardization technique that allows comparing the effect size of independent variables of different units. It is computed using the formula new value = (value − min)/(max–min), which allows variables to have differing means and standard deviations but equal ranges.

  7. Note that the bootstrapping technique does not violate assumptions of normality and therefore provides some advantages over the Sobel test and is recommended for small sample sizes (Preacher and Hayes 2008).

References

  • Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1965). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations, an analytic study. London: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 942–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arian, A., Barnea, S., Ben-Nun, P., Ventura, R., & Shamir, M. (2005). The 2005 Israeli democracy index: A decade after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and measuring democracy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bello, J., & Rolfe, M. (2014). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks, 36, 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Arikan, G. (2012). A two-edged sword: The differential effect of religious belief and religious social context on attitudes towards democracy. Political Behavior, 34, 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Nun Bloom, P., Arikan, G., & Sommer, U. (2014). Globalization, threat and religious freedom. Political Studies, 62, 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Levitan, L. C. (2011). We’re closer than I thought: Social network heterogeneity, morality, and political persuasion. Political Psychology, 32, 643–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S. H., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D. (2006). Free speech and multiculturalism in and out of the academy. Political Psychology, 27, 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. J. (2004). What tolerance is. Ethics, 115, 68–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, M. (1982). Political tolerance in America. London, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, C. S. (1991). Multiple stigma and AIDS: Medical stigma and attitudes toward homosexuals and IV-drug uses in AIDS-related stigmatization. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 1, 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2008). Values and the support for immigration: A cross country comparison. European Sociological Review, 24, 583–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Zavala, G. G., Cislak, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology, 31, 521–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, P. A. (2011). Political pluralism and the information search: Determinants of group opinionation. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, P. A., & Calfano, B. R. (2012). American Muslim investment in civil society: Political discussion, disagreement, and tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 517–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, M. (2006). Rethinking the Relationship between religion and political tolerance in the US. Political Behavior, 28, 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erisen, E., & Erisen, C. (2012). The effect of social networks on the quality of political thinking. Political Psychology, 33, 839–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eveland, W. P, Jr, & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and ‘heterogeneity’ of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eveland, W. P, Jr, & Kleinman, S. B. (2013). Comparing general and political discussion networks within voluntary organizations using social network analysis. Political Behavior, 35, 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falomir-Pichastor, J., & Frederic, N. (2013). The dark side of heterogeneous ingroup identities: National identification, perceived threat, and prejudice against immigrants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. (2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 849–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L. (1992). Alternative measures of political tolerance: Must tolerance be ‘least-liked?’. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L. (2006). Do strong group identities fuel intolerance? Evidence from the South African case. Political Psychology, 27, 665–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L., & Claassen, C. (2010). Racial reconciliation in South Africa: Interracial contact and changes over time. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, J. (1994). Back to the black belt: Racial environment and white racial attitudes in the South. Journal of Politics, 56, 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golebiowska, E. (1995). Individual value priorities, education, and political tolerance. Political Behavior, 17, 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identification in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, G. (2012). Freedom in mass values: Egocentric, humanistic, or both? Using Isaiah Berlin to understand a contemporary debate. European Political Science Review, 4, 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, I. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2014). The uncertainty paradox: Perceived threat moderates the effect of uncertainty on political tolerance. Political Psychology, 35, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyd, D. (1996). Toleration: An elusive virtue. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, M. V., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. A. (2011). Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior, 33(4), 601–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J., & Levine, J. (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94, 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurwitz, J., & Mondak, J. J. (2002). Democratic principles, discrimination and political intolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, M., & Gibler, D. (2007). Political tolerance and territorial threat: A cross-national study. Journal of Politics, 69, 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, K., & Richey, S. (2009). The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 655–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2003). How solid is mass support for democracy—and How do we measure it? Political Science and Politics, 36, 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpov, V. (2002). Religiosity and tolerance in the United States and Poland. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism: The form and substance of urban social networks. NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. NY: Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27, 248–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1057–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitan, L. C., & Wronski, J. (2013). Social context and information seeking: Examining the effects of network attitudinal composition on engagement with political information. Political Behavior, 35, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, N. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Alienable speech: Ideological variations in the application of free-speech principles. Political Psychology, 30, 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, R. N., Singh S. P., & Thornton, J. R. (2014). The moderating impact of social networks on the relationships among core values, partisanship, and candidate evaluations. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12102.

  • Maoz, I. (2011). Contact in protracted asymmetrical conflict: Twenty years of planned encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G., Sullivan, J., Theiss-Morse, E., & Stevens, D. (2005). The emotional foundation of political cognition: The impact of extrinsic anxiety on the formation of political tolerance judgments. Political Psychology, 26, 949–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G., Sullivan, J., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart-Pyatt, S., & Paxton, P. (2007). In principle and in practice: Learning political tolerance in eastern and western Europe. Political Behavior, 29, 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClurg, S. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 737–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 24, 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., & Hurwitz, J. (1998). Values, acts, and actors: Distinguishing generic and discriminatory intolerance. Political Behavior, 20, 313–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., & Sanders, M. S. (2003). Tolerance and intolerance, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 492–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., & Sanders, M. (2005). The Complexity of tolerance and intolerance judgments: A response to Gibson. Political Behavior, 27, 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The Workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 6, 140–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, N., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 422–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, E. J., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattie, C. J., & Johnson, R. J. (2008). It’s good to talk: Talk, disagreement and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 48, 677–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, M., Knigge, P., & Hurwitz, J. (2001). A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 379–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. (2010). Cross-cutting messages and political tolerance: An experiment using Evangelical Protestants. Political Behavior, 32, 495–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roccas, S., & Amit, A. (2011). Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conservation values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 898–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 201–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. California: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D., Hardy, A., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal study. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., et al. (2013). Basic personal values underlie and give coherence to political values: A cross national study in 15 Countries. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9255-z.

  • Seligman, C., & Katz, A. (1996). The dynamics of value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 8). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, M., & Sagiv-Schifter, T. (2006). Conflict, identity, and tolerance: Israel in the Al-Aqsa intifada. Political Psychology, 27, 569–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and Cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, R., Post, S., & Rinden, A. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J., Shamir, M., Walsh, P., & Roberts, N. (1985). Political tolerance in context. CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J., Walsh, P., Shamir, M., Barnum, D., & Gibson, J. (1993). Why politicians are more tolerant: Selective recruitment and socialization among political elites in Britain, Israel, New-Zealand, and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadmor, C., Tetlock, P., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Testa, P. F., Hibbing, M. V., & Ritchie, M. (2014). Orientations toward conflict and the conditional effects of political disagreement. The Journal of Politics (forthcoming).

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, S. A. (2006). The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

For invaluable advice, support and inspiration at different stages of the project we are indebted to Michal Shamir. We are also grateful to Michal Shamir for the use of data from the 2011 tolerance survey. We greatly benefited from comments from the journal’s editors and reviewers. Finally, part of the project was written when the first author was a Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, and she deeply appreciates their hospitality and the generous financial support of VATAT. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel

    Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom

  2. Department of Political Science, Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Toronto, 170 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5R 2M8, Canada

    Olena Bagno-Moldavsky

Authors
  1. Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olena Bagno-Moldavsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 259 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben-Nun Bloom, P., Bagno-Moldavsky, O. The Conditional Effect of Network Diversity and Values on Tolerance. Polit Behav 37, 623–651 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9284-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9284-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation