Key Takeaways
- Self-proclaimed tolerance is often selective: people who strongly endorse tolerance as a value can still show significant intolerance toward ideological opponents, especially when disagreement threatens core moral or worldview beliefs.
- Intolerance is largely symmetrical across the political spectrum—liberals and conservatives exhibit comparable levels of bias against outgroups, driven by perceived threats rather than inherent personality differences.
- Psychological factors such as cognitive rigidity, dogmatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and low openness to experience amplify intolerance, particularly in extreme ideologies on both sides.
- Anti-democratic attitudes show asymmetries, with conservatives more likely to support political inequality or rights restrictions, partially explained by higher authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.
Tolerance is widely regarded as an essential virtue in democratic societies—a willingness to accept beliefs, lifestyles, and opinions that differ from one’s own without hostility or suppression. Yet, in everyday life, politics, and online discourse, many individuals who proudly identify as tolerant display little patience for those who disagree with them. This apparent contradiction—claiming to value tolerance while practicing intolerance toward opposing views—is not merely a rhetorical inconsistency. It is a well-documented psychological phenomenon, supported by empirical research in political psychology and social cognition.
This article examines the science behind this selective or hypocritical tolerance, drawing from four key peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2024. These studies use large-scale surveys, experimental designs, and mediation analyses to reveal why self-proclaimed tolerant people can become intolerant, the cognitive and motivational mechanisms involved, and the broader implications for social cohesion in polarized times. The evidence shows that intolerance is not a partisan defect but a human tendency shaped by ideology, personality, and perceived threat.
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Is Symmetrical Across Ideologies
A foundational 2014 study in Current Directions in Psychological Science by Brandt et al. introduced the ideological-conflict hypothesis, which posits that intolerance arises from perceived conflict between one’s own worldview and that of an opposing group, rather than from inherent ideological traits. The authors reviewed existing literature and conducted new analyses on attitudes toward ideologically dissimilar outgroups.
What the Study Really Found
Liberals and conservatives expressed comparable levels of negativity toward groups that challenged their core values. For liberals, this manifested as greater intolerance toward religious fundamentalists, traditionalists, or pro-life advocates—groups often rated lower on warmth, competence, and morality. Conservatives showed similar bias against atheists, LGBTQ+ activists, or progressive causes. Across multiple datasets (including ANES and other national surveys), effect sizes for outgroup derogation were statistically equivalent (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.5–0.7), and intolerance intensified when the outgroup was perceived as morally threatening. The study found no overall asymmetry: liberals who strongly endorsed tolerance as a personal value were still likely to support restricting rights for conservative speakers on moral issues, mirroring conservative responses to liberal causes.
Strengths, Limitations, and What It Means in Practice
Strengths: Synthesis of large, diverse samples (U.S. and international); multiple measures (attitude scales, behavioral intentions); controls for education, religiosity, and socioeconomic status. Limitations: Heavy reliance on self-reported attitudes rather than observed behavior; primarily Western samples, where political polarization may amplify effects. In practice: This explains why self-proclaimed tolerant individuals (often liberals) may dismiss conservative arguments as “bigoted” or “dangerous” rather than engaging them, rationalizing intolerance as a defense of tolerance itself. It contributes to echo chambers and reduced civil discourse.
Partisan Ideological Attitudes: Intelligence and Intolerance
A 2021 study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Ganzach and Schul used data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) to examine how ideology and intelligence interact with intolerance toward ideological outgroups. The researchers analyzed affective thermometer ratings (0–100 scale) and policy attitudes across multiple waves (n > 10,000).
What the Study Really Found
Conservatives showed higher intolerance toward liberals than liberals did toward conservatives (conservatives rated liberals ~40 points lower than their ingroup, liberals rated conservatives ~30 points lower). However, this asymmetry diminished—and in some cases reversed—among highly intelligent participants. Intelligence (measured via vocabulary tests) amplified intolerance overall: smarter individuals, regardless of ideology, held stronger ideological convictions and were less tolerant of outgroups. For liberals, the “tolerance advantage” disappeared at higher IQ levels, with intelligent liberals showing comparable or greater intolerance toward conservative views than intelligent conservatives toward liberal ones.
“Intelligence amplified intolerance overall: smarter individuals, regardless of ideology, held stronger ideological convictions and were less tolerant of outgroups.” — Ganzach & Schul (2021)
Strengths, Limitations, and What It Means in Practice
Strengths: Large, nationally representative sample; robust controls for education, income, and other demographics; longitudinal ANES data. Limitations: Intolerance measured via affective ratings rather than behavioral outcomes; intelligence proxy (vocabulary) may not capture all cognitive dimensions. In practice: This challenges the stereotype that tolerance is a “smart” trait. Intelligent, self-proclaimed tolerant people (often liberals) may be especially dismissive of opposing views, viewing them as intellectually or morally inferior. It highlights the need for intellectual humility across the spectrum.
Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies: Extremes Breed Intolerance
A 2019 review in Current Directions in Psychological Science by van Prooijen and Krouwel synthesized data from over 20 studies (total n > 15,000) on the psychological underpinnings of extreme political ideologies. The authors examined how far-left and far-right individuals respond to disagreement using surveys, personality inventories, and experimental manipulations.
What the Study Really Found
Both extremes exhibited elevated intolerance, rejecting moderate or opposing perspectives as morally flawed. Extreme liberals (high in openness but dogmatic on social justice issues) were intolerant of conservative traditions, endorsing restrictions on religious expression or traditional family norms. Extreme conservatives mirrored this toward progressive changes. Key psychological drivers included low openness to experience (r = -0.35 with intolerance) and high authoritarianism (r = 0.42), where disagreement threatens psychological certainty. Self-proclaimed tolerant extremists often framed their intolerance as “necessary” for moral progress, creating a self-reinforcing hypocrisy loop.
Strengths, Limitations, and What It Means in Practice
Strengths: Cross-cultural data (Europe, U.S., Asia); integration of Big Five personality traits and behavioral measures. Limitations: Emphasis on ideological extremes (top/bottom 10%); primarily correlational, not causal. In practice: This explains why tolerant rhetoric in activist or online communities can turn exclusionary, as seen in “cancel culture” or ideological purges. It suggests promoting openness through education and intergroup contact to reduce extremism-driven intolerance.
Liberal-Conservative Asymmetries in Anti-Democratic Tendencies
A 2024 study in Communications Psychology by de Oliveira Santos and Jost used a nationally representative U.S. sample (N = 1,557) to examine asymmetries in anti-democratic attitudes, such as support for political inequality, rights denial, and willingness to defect from democratic rules.
What the Study Really Found
Conservatives were less supportive of political equality and legal rights/guarantees, more willing to defect from democratic norms, and more likely to vote for anti-democratic candidates—even after controlling for extremism. These asymmetries were partially mediated by higher right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) among conservatives. Liberals showed tolerance gaps in other areas (e.g., free speech for conservative groups), but the structural asymmetry favored conservatives in anti-democratic tendencies. Political system justification partially mitigated conservative anti-democratic attitudes, and approval of January 6 insurrectionists was higher among conservatives and those high in RWA.
Strengths, Limitations, and What It Means in Practice
Strengths: Nationally representative sample; mediation analyses linking psychological traits to democratic attitudes; robust controls. Limitations: Self-report measures; U.S.-centric; cross-sectional design. In practice: While liberals may show interpersonal intolerance (e.g., social exclusion), conservatives exhibit more structural intolerance (e.g., rights restrictions). This calls for bipartisan efforts to uphold democratic norms and reduce psychological drivers of anti-democratic sentiment.
Why This Happens: Psychological and Social Mechanisms
The studies converge on several mechanisms:
- Cognitive dissonance — Disagreement threatens self-image, so tolerant people reframe opponents as “intolerant” to resolve it.
- Social identity theory — Ingroup favoritism makes outgroup views threatening.
- Moral conviction — Disagreement on sacred values triggers stronger rejection.
- Polarization — Media and algorithms amplify echo chambers, reinforcing hypocrisy.
In polarized environments, tolerance becomes a rhetorical tool rather than a genuine practice.
FAQs: Tolerance and Intolerance
Why do people who say they are very tolerant sometimes refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them? Because tolerance is often selective. Studies show people are tolerant of views they already agree with, but quickly become intolerant when disagreement threatens their core beliefs or moral worldview (Brandt et al., 2014).
Is it true that both liberals and conservatives can be intolerant, or is it mostly one side? It’s both. Research consistently finds that liberals and conservatives show roughly the same level of intolerance toward groups or ideas that conflict with their values.
If someone claims to value tolerance a lot, why would they still get upset or shut down opposing opinions? They experience cognitive dissonance: disagreement feels like a threat to their self-image as a “tolerant” person, so they reframe the other side as “intolerant” or “dangerous” to justify rejecting it (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019).
Does being smarter make someone more tolerant of different opinions? Surprisingly, no. Higher intelligence is linked to stronger ideological convictions, which can make both liberals and conservatives less tolerant of opposing views (Ganzach & Schul, 2021).
Why do people on the far left or far right seem especially unwilling to accept disagreement? Extreme ideologies are associated with higher dogmatism and lower openness to experience, making any challenge to their beliefs feel like a moral or existential threat (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019).
Do liberals really support free speech less than they claim when it comes to conservative ideas? Some surveys indicate that liberals may be more willing than conservatives to support restrictions on certain conservative-leaning groups, particularly when those groups are perceived as violating moral norms.
How can someone be intolerant while thinking they are defending tolerance? They redefine “tolerance” to mean accepting only morally acceptable views in their eyes, so they justify excluding or censoring anything they see as harmful or wrong (Brandt et al., 2014).
Is this kind of intolerance getting worse because of social media? Research suggests that polarized media environments and algorithm-driven content exposure may reinforce existing beliefs and strengthen group identity. However, the studies reviewed here did not directly measure social media algorithm effects, so this conclusion should be interpreted as consistent with broader media psychology research rather than directly established by van Prooijen & Krouwel (2019).
Does this intolerance show up more in real life or just online? Both, but surveys and experiments show it in offline attitudes too — people say they would deny rights, jobs, or social relationships to ideological opponents.
Why do people get so angry when someone challenges their political or moral beliefs? Because those beliefs are tied to identity and moral conviction. Disagreement feels like a personal attack, triggering defensive intolerance (Brandt et al., 2014).
Can someone be tolerant of everything except intolerance itself? That’s the classic paradox of tolerance. Studies show people often use “fighting intolerance” as a reason to be intolerant of certain groups or ideas (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019).
Do highly educated people tend to be more tolerant of disagreement? Not necessarily. Education correlates with stronger ideological positions, which can make intelligent people less tolerant of opposing views (Ganzach & Schul, 2021).
Is this problem worse among younger people or older people? It’s often stronger in younger adults because identity and ideology are still forming, making disagreement feel more threatening (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019).
How do you know if you’re being intolerant even though you think you’re tolerant? Pay attention to your emotional reaction: if disagreement makes you angry, dismissive, or eager to silence the other person rather than listen, that’s a sign (Brandt et al., 2014).
Why do some people call others “bigots” the moment they disagree on social issues? It’s a defensive strategy: labeling disagreement as bigotry allows the person to avoid engaging with the argument and protects their self-image as tolerant.
Does this intolerance affect friendships and family relationships? Yes — many people report cutting off or distancing from friends and family who hold opposing political or moral views (Ganzach & Schul, 2021).
Can therapy or counseling help someone become more tolerant of disagreement? Some psychological interventions, including cognitive-behavioral approaches, have been shown in separate research to reduce rigid thinking patterns and increase openness. However, the studies reviewed here did not directly test therapeutic interventions for political intolerance.
Is this pattern the same in other countries, or is it mainly an American problem? It appears in many Western democracies, but polarization makes it more visible in the U.S. (Brandt et al., 2014).
Why do people feel justified in being intolerant of certain opinions? They believe those opinions are dangerous or morally wrong, so suppressing them feels like protecting society rather than being intolerant.
How can schools or universities encourage real tolerance instead of just saying they value it? By promoting viewpoint diversity, protecting free speech for all sides, and teaching critical thinking instead of ideological conformity (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2019).
Does this intolerance lead to more extreme beliefs over time? Yes — constant exposure to only like-minded views can push people toward more extreme positions (Ganzach & Schul, 2021).
Related Reading:
Recognizing Manipulation: A Psychological Guide to Identifying Cult-Like Dynamics and Echo Chambers
The Psychology of Wealth: Why Honesty Can Hinder the Pursuit of Extreme Riches
Final Thoughts
Self-proclaimed tolerance is frequently selective and hypocritical when confronted with genuine disagreement. The four studies reviewed show that intolerance is symmetrical across ideologies, amplified by cognitive rigidity, moral threats, and personality traits like authoritarianism. While liberals often endorse tolerance as a central value, empirical findings suggest that individuals across the political spectrum may display similar levels of intolerance toward groups perceived as morally or ideologically threatening. Differences tend to depend more on perceived value conflict and psychological traits than on political label alone. Conservatives, meanwhile, show stronger asymmetries in anti-democratic attitudes, partially explained by psychological differences.
This phenomenon contributes to polarization, echo chambers, and reduced civil discourse. To counter it, individuals and societies need greater self-awareness, exposure to diverse perspectives, and norms that prioritize engagement over exclusion. True tolerance requires the courage to listen to—and even respect—those who disagree, turning hypocrisy into genuine pluralism. In a divided world, that remains a worthy, if challenging, goal.
To start examining your own tolerance, try Harvard’s free Implicit Association Test (IAT) on political or ideological biases: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html. It’s a quick, anonymous way to uncover hidden preferences and reflect on where selective intolerance might be showing up in your own thinking.
It is important to note that most studies in this field rely on survey-based or correlational data. While they reveal consistent patterns in attitudes, they cannot establish that ideology directly causes intolerance. Ongoing research continues to examine how situational factors, media environments, and institutional trust shape these dynamics.
References
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932
Ganzach, Y., & Schul, Y. (2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1551–1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000324
van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2019). Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418817755
de Oliveira Santos, D., & Jost, J. T. (2024). Liberal-conservative asymmetries in anti-democratic tendencies are partly explained by psychological differences in a nationally representative U.S. sample. Communications Psychology, 2, Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00096-3
