所謂的政治容忍，係指對於自己不同意或不喜歡的主張或團體，仍然願意尊重其發表意見與活動的權利。在Dahl的主張中，多元政體（polyarchy）的構成要素除了選舉制度方面的要求外，最重要的就是公民自由。所謂的公民自由即是指所有人民均有權參與任何政治團體，也均有表達言論的自由。因此，公民自由便以政治容忍的面貌呈現，故政治容忍亦成為民主政體是否能夠成為Dahl所稱「多元政體」的重要因素。
    台灣近年來歷經一連串民主轉型的過程，雖然透過選舉產生政治菁英已經成為台灣社會的普遍價值，但隨著族群議題不斷發酵，不同意見的群體之間產生衝突已非偶發事件。我們可以透過對於政治容忍的分析，瞭解台灣在民主轉型的過程中，是否逐漸向民主鞏固（democracy consolidate）的狀態邁進？ 
本文試圖透過社會背景與政治態度兩個面向共計七個變項分析影響台灣民眾政治容忍之因素。依據過去學者研究顯示，如欲探討政治容忍，必須以受訪者心目中對特定標的團體存在威脅認知為前提。因此在本文第二章中，針對台灣民眾標的團體之選擇進行瞭解。分析結果發現，絕大多數受訪者仍同時認為「台灣獨立主張」與「一國兩制主張」均會對其產生威脅認知，且年齡越輕、教育程度越高的受訪者，對於標的團體的選擇也越明確。
    在確認台灣民眾的標的團體選擇分布狀況後，進一步分析影響台灣民眾政治容忍之因素。研究中發現，教育程度、威脅認知與民主價值對於政治容忍的影響是最顯著的。教育程度與民主價值越高，對於標的團體越趨於容忍；而威脅認知越高，政治容忍程度則越低。此結果與過去研究結論相符。但如同省籍、政黨認同等變數，其影響則未如預期中明顯。這或許顯示因社會分歧所造成的政治分歧已逐漸趨於緩和，而教育程度與民主價值的普及與提升，或許對於台灣民眾政治容忍的提升，均有正面的助益。教育程度代表社會化的程度，教育程度較高者，代表其社會化程度亦較高，且教育的內容也較能深化於人民心中。若民主價值能夠配合教育的內容，則隨著教育程度的提高，民主價值亦能經由社會化的過程深植於人民心中。尤其當社會中存在著明顯的威脅認知與標的團體時，人民對於該威脅認知與標的團體的政治容忍程度是降低的。唯有透過民主價值的普遍化方能使人民在既存的威脅認知之下，仍然對該標的團體維持一定程度的政治容忍。而要將民主價值普遍化，便可透過教育以進行民主價值社會化的過程。
關鍵字：政治容忍、威脅認知、標的團體

Political tolerance is defined by the willingness to respect the right of other people or groups to express opinions and to hold activities even when we do not agree with their opinions or like the other people or group.According to Dahl theory, the main factor for the formation of polyarchy is freedom for the citizens, in addition to voting system requirements and regulations.  Freedom for the citizens is defined as the right for all citizens to join any political group and to have the freedom of speech.  Therefore, freedom for the citizens is illustrated via political tolerance. Political tolerance is becoming the main factor in determining whether a democratic political entity can become what Dahl refers to as polyarchy. 
In recent years, Taiwan has experienced a series of democratic transformation events. Even though the creation of core politicians through elections has become the popular view in Taiwanese society, conflicts caused by different opinions between various groups are not rare occurrences because of the amplifying ethnicity issues caused by persistent discussions around ethnicity differences.Through the analysis of political tolerance, we can understand whether Taiwan is marching towards the democracy consolidate state through the series of democratic transformation events.
This paper intends to analyze the seven factors influencing political tolerance level of people in Taiwan through two points of view, society background and political attitude.In order to research political tolerance, the studies from previous scholars indicate that the research subjects’ perceiving of the threats of existence for targeted groups is the prerequisite.  Therefore, the focus of second chapter of this paper is to understand the group choices that people of Taiwan make.The results of the analysis concludes that the majority of the research subjects still thinks both “Independence of Taiwan ideology” and “Two Systems Under One Country Ideology” causes them threats.Furthermore, the younger and more educated the research subjects are, the more precise the group choice.
After confirming the distribution of group choices that people of Taiwan make, the paper further analysis the factors influencing political tolerance level of people in Taiwan.The research shows, education level, threat perceiving, and democratic values have the most distinct influence.The higher the education level and democratic values, the most tolerant they are towards the groups.On the other hand, the higher the threat perceiving, the lower the political tolerance.The results are in line with the conclusions of researches in the past.But, other factors like provincial origin and identification with political parties have less influence that expected.This may possibly indicate the political differences caused by society background differences are calming down.The increases in education level and the spreading democratic values may have positive impacts to increase the political tolerance level for people of Taiwan. The level of education represents the degree of socialization, the level of education higher, representative's its socialization degree is also higher, and the educational content also can be turned in people heart deeply more in.If the value of democracy can match with an educational content, then along with the exaltation of  level of education, value of democracy also the ability rooteds in people heart through the process of socialization in.Particularly be exist in the society obvious of threat perceiving and target group, people for should threaten perceiving and target group of political is tolerant of the degree reduce.Then can make through the popularization of the value of democracy only people at since the threat perceiving for saving under, still maintain the political tolerance of certain degree to the target group.And want value of democracy popularization, then can through educate with the process of carrying on the value of democracy socialization.

第一章  緒論..........................................1
第一節  研究動機與目的................................1
第二節  文獻檢閱......................................4
第三節  研究問題與研究設計...........................16
第二章  標的團體之選擇與分析.........................25
第一節  受訪者選擇標的團體之各變項分布狀況...........27
第二節  受訪者標的團體選擇數目之變數分析.............32
第三章  影響台灣民眾政治容忍因素之分析.............. 39
第一節  影響民眾對於「台灣獨立主張」及「一國兩制主張」政治容忍之因素...........................................40
第二節  影響台灣民眾整體政治容忍之因素...............45
第四章  結論.........................................48
附錄.................................................54
參考文獻.............................................61
中文參考文獻.........................................61
英文參考文獻.........................................62
表次
表2-1：標的團體認知比例（2003年）....................30
表2-2：標的團體數選擇比例（1）（2003年）.............32
表2-3：標的團體標的團體選擇比例（2）（2003年）.......36
表3-1：影響「台灣獨立主張」與「一國兩制主張」政治容忍量表之多元迴歸分析（2003年）...............................41
表3-2：政治容忍綜合量表之多元迴歸分析（2003年）......45
圖次
圖1-1：政治容忍的測量對象............................19
圖1-2：影響政治容忍的變數............................21
圖1-3：標的團體的選擇與數量..........................24

一、中文文獻部分
江宜樺
2001    自由民主的理路，台北：聯經，頁143。
林聰吉
2007   「解析台灣的民主政治：以民主支持度與滿意度為觀察指標」，選舉研究，第十四卷第一期。
徐火炎
1992   「民主轉型過程中政黨的重組：台灣地區選民的民主價值取向、政黨偏好與黨派投票改變之研究」，人文及社會科學集刊，五卷一期：213-263。
盛治仁
2003   「台灣民眾民主價值及政治信任感研究」，選舉研究，十卷一期：115-169。
黃秀端
1996   「台灣民眾政治容忍的分析」，東吳政治學報，第六期，頁1-38。。
鄧忠俊、陳陸輝
2005   「台灣民眾政治容忍感的分析與探討-以TEDS2003為例」，台灣選舉與民主化調查研討會。
二、英文文獻部分
Almond, Gabroe A. , and Sidney Verba
1963   The Civic Culture. Princeton, N. J. : :Princeton University Press.

Bollen, Kenneth A. 
1980   “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.” American Sociological Review 45:370-390
1986.   “Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984.” Human Rights Quarterly  8: 567-591.

Bobo, Lawrence, and Frederick C. Licari
1989   “Education and Political Tolerance: Testing the Effects of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect.” Public Opinion Quarterly.  53: 285-308.

Crockett, Jr., Harry J.
1976   “On Political Tolerance: Comments on “Origins of Tolerance”.”Social Forces. 55(2): 409-412
Converse, Philip E.
1964   “The nature of belief systems in mass Publics.” In David Apter, ed., Ideology and discontent. New York: The Free Press, pp.206-261

Chen, Lu-huei and T.Y. Wang
2005   “Political Tolerance in Taiwan: Is There a Gap between Elites and Masses?” Paper Delivered at the International Conference on Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study, Academia Sinica, Tapei, Taiwan, November 12-13.

Dahl, Rober A. 
1989   Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University.
1971   Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University.

Daniel A. Wren
1979    The Evolution of Management Thought, New York: John Wiley & Sons, ,297-314

Davis, James A.
1992    “Changing Weather in a Cooling Climate Atop the Liberal Plateau: Conversion and Replacement in Torty-Two General Social Suvey Items, 1972-1989.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56:261-306

1975    “Communism, Conformity, Cohort, and Cateories: American Tolerance in 1954 and 1972-1973.” American Journal of Sociology  81: 491-513

Duch, Raymond M. and James L. Gibson.
1992    “Putting up With” Fascists in Western Europe: A Comparative, Cross-Level Analysis of Political Tolerance.” Western Political Quarterly 45:237-273.

Erikson, Robert S. and Luttber, Norman R.
1973    American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content and Impact. New York: John Wiley.

Eysenck, Hans Murgen
1954	The Psychology of Politics. New York: Praeger.

Gibson, James L.
1992    “Alternative Measures of Political Tolerance: Must Tolerance Be”Least Liked”?” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 36 No.2 (May): 560-577

Gribson, James L. and Raymond Dutch.
1991    ”Elitist Theory and Political Tolerance in Western Europe.” Political Behavior, v.17, no.1: 23-48.

Glazer, N., and S. M. Lipset.
1955    ”The Polls on Communism and Conformity.” In Daniel Bell(ed.)The New American Right. New York: Criterion Books.

Greeley, Andrew M., and Paul B. Sheatsley. 
1974    “Attitudes toward racial integration.” In Lee Rainwater, ed., Social Problems and Public Policy: Inequality and Justice. Chicago: Aldine, pp.241-250

Harry J. Crockett, Jr.
1976    “On Political Tolerance: Comments on”Origins of Tolerance” Social Forces, Vol.55, No.2, 409-412

Hennessey, Bernard. 
1972    “A headnote on the existence and study of political attitudes.” In Dan D. Nimmo and Charles M. Bonjean, eds., Political attitudes and public opinion. New York: David McKay Co.,27-40

Hyman, H. H. 
1963    “England and America: Climates of Tolerance and Intolerance.” In Daniel Bell(ed.) The Racial Right. New York: Doubleday.

Inglehart, Ronald
1977    The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles.Princeton,N.J.: Princeton Univerity Press.

Jackman, Mary R.
1978    “General and Applied Tolerance: Does Education Increase Commitment to Racial Integration?” American Journal of Political Science 22:302-24.

Knutson, Jeanne.
1972    The Human Basis of the Polity. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Lawrence, David G.
1976    “Procedutal Norms and Tolerance: A Reassessment.”American Political Science Quarterly 70: 80-100

Lipset, Seymour Martin and Earl Rabb
1970    “The Politics of Unreason.” New York: Basic Books. 432-33

Marsh, Alan
1977    Protest and Political Consciousness. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Martin, John G . , and Frand E. Westie
1959	“The Tolerant Personality.” American Sociological Review 24: 521-28.

Massey, Garth; Randy Hodson; Dusko Sekulic
1999    “Ethnic Enclaves and Intolerance: The Case of Yugoslavia” Social Force Vol. 78, No. 2 ( Dec., 1999 ) : 669-693

McClosky, H.
1964    “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58:351-82.

McClosky, H.; P. J, Hoffman;  P. O’Hara
1960    “Issue Confoict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers.”American Political Sicience Review 54: 406-429

McCutcheon, Allan L.
1985    “A Latent Class Analysis of Tolerance for Nonconformify in the American Public.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.49, No.4: 484-86

Muller, John. 
1988    “Trends in Political Tolerance.” Public Opinion Quarterly 52:1-25

Neumann, Sigmund.
1965    Permanent Revolution: the Total State in a World at War. 2nd Edition. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Nunn, Clyde, Harry Crockett, and Allen Williams. 
1978    Tolerance for Nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

O’Donnell, Guillermo
1996     “Illusions About Consolidation.” Journal of Democracy. 7(2): 34-51

Prothro, James W. and Charles W. Grigg.
1960    “Fundamental Principles of Democuacy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement.” Journal of Politics 2:276-94

Rosenberg, Morris
1956    “Misanthropy and Political Ideology.” American Sociological Review 21: 690-95
Schedler, Andreas
1998    “What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91-107

Selznick, Gertrude, and Stephen Steinberg. 
1969    The tenacity of prejudice: Anti-Semitism in contemporary America. New York: Harper and Row.

Sniderman, Paul. 
1975    Personality and Democratic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Stewart, Douglas K.
1967    Support for dissent: A Study of rrends in the U.S.”Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Stouffer Samuel. 
1955    Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. New York: Doubleday.

Sullivan, John L.; James Piereson; George E. Marcus
1979    “An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance Illusory Increase 1950s-1970s.”American Political Science Review, 73:781-794

Sullivan, John L.; George E. Marcus; Stanley Feldman, James E. Piereson, 
1981    “The Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis.” The American Political Science Review, 75(1): 92-106