Why exclude others from democracy? Obstinate partisanship, conspiracy mentality, and political intolerance

Wide-ranging and heterogeneous participation within political processes has been theorized as the foundational spirit of healthy democracies. Individual lack of support for large and diverse public participation remains at the core of that premise. This study extends existing research on the antecedents of political intolerance toward ‘others.’ To do so, this study introduces three understudied concepts in this context: Obstinate partisanship, conspiracy mentality, and political intolerance.

Drawing on partisan motivated reasoning and group identity theories, this study hypothesizes that these three concepts are interrelated. Using a two-wave diverse online panel survey data in the United States, this study shows that obstinate partisanship and conspiracy mentality significantly predict political intolerance. Those who develop unreasonable, unconditional party loyalty and those who are more likely to hold conspiratorial mentalities will embrace repressive political attitudes toward outgroups when they participate in politics.

Furthermore, a mediation model test suggests that conspiracy mentality significantly mediates the influence of obstinate partisanship over political intolerance. The study provides relevant theoretical implications about political intolerance in democracy and adds to the understanding of its antecedents. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed in the manuscript.

The authors received no specific funding for this work. University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA Universidad Diego Portales, Chile, Santiago, Chile German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany The authors declare no competing interests. The research protocol was reviewed internally in 2019/2020 within the Department of Communication at the University of Vienna in accordance with departmental ethics guidelines governing minimal-risk research.

Under these guidelines, studies are required to be submitted to the University of Vienna Ethics Committee only when they qualify as medium or high risk, including research involving invasive procedures, the collection of physiological or biological data, the involvement of external medical or psychological specialists (e.g., EEG, ECG, DNA or blood sampling), exposure to severely disturbing stimuli, participation of individuals unable to provide informed consent, or the inclusion of particularly vulnerable populations (e.g., clinical, hospitalized, imprisoned, or cognitively impaired individuals). Based on this framework, the present study was determined to meet the criteria for minimal-risk research and therefore did not require submission to, or formal review by, the University-wide Ethics Committee. The study employed an anonymous online survey, involved non-vulnerable adult participants, collected no personally identifiable or sensitive data, and exposed participants only to non-disturbing questionnaire items concerning everyday media use and politics.

Consequently, in line with University of Vienna regulations and departmental policy at the time, the study was automatically classified as exempt from formal ethics committee review. No IRB or exemption number was assigned, as the institution does not issue such numbers for minimal-risk studies that do not require submission. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Vienna Ethics Committee, the Department of Communication’s Guidelines for Ethical Research, and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.