Perceived Religious Tolerance as a Socio‐Cognitive Construct Through Bandura's Framework

ABSTRACT

Interreligious tolerance is imperative for sustaining diversity and is fervently advocated by local, national, and international entities. The current essay focuses on the concept of perceived religious tolerance using Bandura's socio‐cognitive framework, highlighting the interplay between personal, behavioural, and environmental elements in shaping attitudes towards religious diversity. The paper presents perceived religious tolerance as a subjective construct influenced by cognitive, emotional, and biological factors, as well as social and institutional contexts, vis a vis the sociological objective concept of religious tolerance. The reciprocal determinism model proposed by Bandura is used to illustrate how individual beliefs and environmental settings, such as family, education, and legal systems, contribute to the development of tolerant or intolerant attitudes. This entry explains how both proactive and exclusionary behaviours reinforce perceptions of religious tolerance, offering a sophisticated model for understanding religious tolerance as a socio‐cognitive construct with significant implications for fostering inclusivity in diverse societies. The manuscript also critically applies this psychological framework to modern secularism, contending that ‘difference‐blind’ secular policies create a façade of neutrality that compels the privatisation of faith, marginalises minority groups, and causes significant moral injury. Theoretical arguments are empirically substantiated by a case study of the Muslim minority in Calicut, Kerala, illustrating how a systemic transition from traditionally organic communal integration to majoritarian‐biased secular nationalism propels minority populations towards intergroup anxiety, defensive self‐censorship, social withdrawal, and perceived intolerance. The paper ultimately concludes that promoting genuine inclusivity and perceptions of tolerance necessitates substituting coerced assimilation with institutional ‘relational neutrality’ and facilitating significant intergroup interaction.