With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
How do citizens faced with a complex variety of considerations decide whether or not to tolerate extremist groups? Relying on several survey-experiments, the authors identify and compare the impact on decision making of contemporary information, long-standing predispositions, and enduring values and beliefs. People react most strongly to data about a group's violations of behavioral norms and 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.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
antecedent considerations argued asked attitudes basic behavioral intentions beliefs Chapter citizens civil liberties coefficient commitment to democratic contemporary information contemporary tolerance judgments current tolerance judgments democracy democratic norms democratic principles democratic values democratic-norms demonstrations elites emotional experimental expertise extraversion feelings freedom of speech hypothetical group impact individuals instruction set interaction intolerant behavioral intolerant respondents least-liked group less tolerant limbic systems malice manipulation check measures ments mood need for cognition negative neuroticism normative violations manipulation normative violations paragraph noxious group openness to experience people's personality political tolerance judgments posttest predispositions and standing probability of power racist group reassuring related to behavioral role scale scenario selected a racist significant significantly specific standing decisions strongly subjects suggests Sullivan support for democratic survey-experiments target group thoughts threat perceptions threatening information tion tolerance decision tolerance judg tolerant or intolerant variables White Supremacist Zaller