What validated survey instruments measure political tolerance among U.S. Democrats and Republicans?
Executive summary
Two long-standing, validated survey traditions dominate U.S. measures of political tolerance: the General Social Survey (GSS) civil liberties/“fixed-group” items and the Freedom and Tolerance / Freedom and Tolerance–style surveys that apply “least-liked” or tailored group questions; both approaches have been extensively analyzed in the literature as reliable instruments for tracking tolerance over decades (GSS longevity noted; Freedom and Tolerance surveys run 2007–2011) [1] [2]. Recent scholarship emphasizes that measures vary in what they capture (tolerance of hateful speech vs. willingness to protect civil liberties) and that political orientation — not simply party label — often predicts tolerance differences within Democrats and Republicans [3] [4].
1. What researchers most often use: GSS civil‑liberties items and variants
The General Social Survey’s civil‑liberties battery — asking whether particular controversial groups should be allowed to speak, assemble, or run for office — is the workhorse for U.S. political‑tolerance research because of its multi‑decade continuity and panel components; scholars treat its fixed‑group items as a validated index even as they debate which target groups to include [1] [3]. Public‑opinion analysts and academics continue to rely on these GSS items to build cross‑time indexes and to compare subgroup trends by party and ideology [3].
2. Alternative validated approach: “least‑liked” / tailored‑target tolerance measures
An influential alternative adapts tolerance questions to each respondent’s “least liked” political or social group, asking whether respondents would protect that group’s civil liberties; this tailored approach is central to the Freedom and Tolerance surveys and related projects and is explicitly discussed in comparative measurement work [2]. The tailored method aims to reveal tolerance toward genuinely disliked outgroups — a different construct than willingness to tolerate a fixed list of groups — and researchers have used it in cross‑national and U.S. studies [2].
3. What each instrument actually measures (and its limits)
GSS fixed‑group items capture a broad, longitudinal picture of support for civil‑liberties protections across standardized targets, which enables cohort and trend analysis, but they may confound tolerance with respondents’ baseline dislike for included groups and may not reflect tolerance toward a respondent’s specific political outgroup [1] [3]. The least‑liked / Freedom and Tolerance method isolates willingness to defend rights of a personally disliked target, but comparability across respondents is reduced because the target varies by person; both approaches are treated as validated yet conceptually distinct by measurement scholars [2] [1].
4. What recent studies say about partisanship vs. ideology
Multiple recent studies using long‑running survey data find that party label alone is an imperfect predictor of tolerance: political orientation (liberal–moderate–conservative) explains meaningful differences within each party. For example, Garneau and Schwadel’s analysis of decades of GSS data shows liberal Democrats as the most tolerant subgroup, while moderate Democrats can resemble moderate Republicans on tolerance measures — underlining the need to disaggregate Democrats and Republicans by ideology when using any tolerance instrument [4] [5].
5. Practical guidance for researchers and survey designers
Choose the GSS fixed‑group battery to compare historical trends or when you need standardized, cross‑time comparability; choose a least‑liked/tailored design if your goal is to measure willingness to defend rights for groups a respondent truly dislikes. Combine both approaches where possible and report both constructs separately, because the literature stresses they answer different empirical questions about “tolerance” [2] [1].
6. What the sources do not settle (remaining gaps)
Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted “gold standard” instrument that both parties and ideologues treat as definitive; nor do they provide a modern, consolidated scale that harmonizes fixed‑group and tailored approaches into one validated index for U.S. Democrats and Republicans specifically (not found in current reporting). Researchers continue to debate item wording, target selection, and whether tolerance of speech should exempt hate speech from measurement [1] [3].
7. How to report results responsibly to avoid misleading readers
Report which instrument you used and what it operationalizes (fixed list versus least‑liked target), disaggregate by political orientation within party categories, and avoid equating higher average tolerance in a party with uniform tolerance among its members — the literature shows within‑party heterogeneity matters [4] [5].