Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T21:40:42.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Tolerance Judgments and Contemporary Information – The Basic Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

George E. Marcus
Affiliation:
Williams College, Massachusetts
John L. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Sandra L. Wood
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
Get access

Summary

People react with their guts instead of their head and then justify intellectually what their gut reactions are. Guts have nothing to do with this.… If guts decided what kind of Bill of Rights we were going to have,… we'd have a very different country. We'd probably have something closer to a dictatorship.

David Goldberger, “Skokie: Rights or Wrong”

We have thus far laid out the basic arguments that constitute the foundation for our model of tolerance judgments. First, as Chapter 2 revealed, previous research has clearly established the strong influence of antecedent considerations, such as personality, education, and commitment to democratic principles, on people's current tolerance judgments. Such predispositions and standing decisions presumably set boundaries on people's willingness to be tolerant or intolerant at any given time. But this past research also identifies another potential influence on tolerance: perceptions of threat. While people may have a predisposition to see threat as pervasive, or a standing decision to perceive a disliked group as threatening, threatening stimuli in the environment can also be especially relevant pieces of contemporary information.

As we discussed in Chapter 3, Gray argues that the BIS monitors the environment for threatening stimuli that violate norms of proper, orderly behavior. Therefore, the type and degree of threat a group poses provide people with information that may affect their current tolerance judgment. State of mind, that is, whether people pay attention to their thoughts or feelings, may also affect their contemporary tolerance judgments.

Type
Chapter
Information
With Malice toward Some
How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
, pp. 55 - 98
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×