Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments addresses an issue integral to democratic societies: how people faced with a complex variety of considerations decide whether or not to tolerate extremist groups. Relying on several survey-experiments, Marcus, Sullivan, Theiss-Morse, and Wood identify and compare the impact on decision making of contemporary information, long-standing predispositions, and enduring values and beliefs. Citizens react most strongly to information about a group's violations of behavioral norms and information about the implications for democracy of the group's actions. The authors conclude that democratic citizens should have a strong baseline of tolerance yet be attentive to and thoughtful about current information.

Tabla de contenidos provista por Syndetics

• Preface: Political tolerance and democratic life
• Part 1 Theoretical Background and Overview
• 1 Political tolerance and democratic practice
• 2 Antecedent considerations and contemporary information
• 3 Thinking and mood
• Part 2 Contemporary Information and Political Tolerance Judgments
• 4 Tolerance judgments and contemporary information -The basic studies
• Appendix 4A The basic experiments -manipulation checks
• Part 3 Refining the Model - The Role of Antecedent Conserations as Individual Differences
• 5 Threat and political tolerance
• 6 Democratic values as standing decisions and contemporary information
• 7 Source credibility, political knowledge and animus in making tolerance judgments - the Texas experiment
• 8 Individual differences: The influence of personality
• Part 4 Implications and Conclusions
• 9 Intensity, motivations, and behavioral intentions
• 10 Human nature and political tolerance
• Appendices
• Bibliography

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

An empirical analysis of why individuals are tolerant or intolerant of political groups, this study is based on an experimental design using survey instruments administered to panels of undergraduate students, university employees, and members of a local community. The predispositions of respondents are examined by the first wave of interviews, while the second gathers reactions to sets of political scenarios. The authors find, among other things, that predispositions toward political groups (e.g., communists, religious fundamentalists) and information about current group behaviors help form those reactions, although people differ in how they weigh the variables. People were also found less tolerant when acting from emotion rather than thought. Attempts to link findings to broader concerns are unsatisfactory; for example, they argue that threatening behavior is likely to be self-defeating because it will alienate less tolerant segments of the population, but it may also be a powerful incentive for elites to act. This complex analysis will be of interest to students of political psychology. Graduate students; faculty. J. J. Carroll University of Massachusetts Dartmouth