Exploring social tolerance in the light of identity markers within a heterogeneous population: a demographic study in a multi-tribal context
Table 2.
Analysis of the dependency link between thestrength of identification and the level of tolerance in the participants
| Identification force | Total | Tolerance level (DV) | | to the feeling thermometer | to the affirmative action | to the multiculturalism | | Weak | High | Weak | High | Weak | High | | Tribal | Weak | 122 | 31 | 91 | 40 | 82 | 6 | 116 | | High | 190 | 29 | 161 | 55 | 135 | 8 | 182 | | Total | 312 | 60 | 252 | 95 | 217 | 14 | 298 | | Chi-Square (c2(312)) | c2(312) = 0.125 ; p = .03 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312) = 0.517 ; p = .05 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312)) = 0.087 ; p = .00 ; Ddl = 1 | | Contingency coefficient | 0.016 | 0.041 | 0.017 | | Linguistic | Weak | 117 | 35 | 82 | 39 | 78 | 5 | 112 | | High | 195 | 25 | 170 | 56 | 139 | 9 | 186 | | Total | 312 | 60 | 252 | 95 | 217 | 14 | 298 | | Chi-Square (c2(312)) | c2(312) = 13.757 ; p = .00 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312) = 0.736 ; p = .04 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312) = 0.020 ; p = .00 ; Ddl = 1 | | Contingency coefficient | 0.205 | 0.048 | 0.008 | | Religious | Weak | 126 | 35 | 91 | 36 | 90 | 6 | 120 | | High | 186 | 25 | 161 | 59 | 127 | 8 | 178 | | Total | 312 | 60 | 252 | 95 | 217 | 14 | 298 | | Chi-Square (c2(312)) | c2(312) = 9.940 ; p = .00 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312) = 0.352 ; p = .00 ; Ddl = 1 | c2(312) = 0.037 ; p = .01 ; Ddl = 1 | | Contingency coefficient | 0.176 | 0.034 | 0.011 |
|
|
