28 results
Following lines in the landscape: Playing with a posthuman pedagogy in outdoor environmental education
- Scott Jukes, Alistair Stewart, Marcus Morse
-
- Journal:
- Australian Journal of Environmental Education / Volume 38 / Issue 3-4 / September 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 October 2021, pp. 345-360
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Situated within a series of river journeys, this inquiry considers the role of material landscape in shaping learning possibilities and explores practices of reading landscapes diffractively. We consider ways we might pay attention to the ever-changing flux of places while experimenting with posthuman pedagogical praxis. Methodologically, we embrace the post-qualitative provocation to do research differently by enacting a new empiricism that does not ground the inquiry in a paradigmatic structure. In doing so, we rethink conventional notions of method and data as we create a series of short videos from footage recorded during canoeing journeys with tertiary outdoor environmental education students. These videos, along with a student poem, form the empirical materials in this project. Video allows us to closely analyse more-than-human entanglements, contemplating the diverse ways we can participate with and read landscapes in these contexts. We aim to provoke diffractive thought and elicit affective dimensions of material encounters, rather than offer representational findings. This project intends to open possibilities for post-qualitative research, inspired by posthuman and new materialist orientations.
Wild Pedagogies: Six Initial Touchstones for Early Childhood Environmental Educators
- Bob Jickling, Sean Blenkinsop, Marcus Morse, Aage Jensen
-
- Journal:
- Australian Journal of Environmental Education / Volume 34 / Issue 2 / July 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 April 2018, pp. 159-171
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This article is a small piece of a much larger and still evolving project. Herein we focus on six touchstones for wild pedagogies. The article begins with a short orientation to the larger ideas behind the project and then focuses on exploring six current touchstones with a view towards early childhood environmental educators. The six explored here are: (1) agency and the role of nature as co-teacher; (2) wildness and challenging ideas of control; (3) complexity, the unknown, and spontaneity; (4) locating the wild; (5) time and practice; and (6) cultural change.
Linking Neuroscience to Political Intolerance and Political Judgment
- George E. Marcus, Sandra L. Wood, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse
-
- Journal:
- Politics and the Life Sciences / Volume 17 / Issue 2 / September 1998
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 May 2016, pp. 165-178
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
There is substantial evidence that intolerance arises from perceptions of difference. A prevailing view holds that even if intolerance is understandable as a defense mechanism, or as an attitude intended to ward off threatening groups and noxious activities, it often is the result of human irrationality and indulgence of prejudice. This conclusion is supported by studies that seem to demonstrate the apparent irrelevance of the actual level of threat to levels of intolerance. These studies show human actions attendant to diversity are caused by established convictions (i.e., prejudice) rather than by the degree of threat. However, informed by theoretical approaches provided by neuroscientists, we report findings that threat is, indeed, a provocative factor that modifies political tolerance in predictable ways. Previous studies defined threat as probabilistic assessments of the likelihood of bad events. When threat is defined as novelty and normative violations (i.e., as departures from expected, or normal, occurrence), then consistent relationships to intolerance are obtained.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Preface: Political Tolerance and Democratic Life
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp xi-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The late twentieth century has witnessed astonishing technological advances that make information readily and widely available. In fact, people today are bombarded with information, to the point of what some have referred to as “information overload.” Political events are covered twenty-four hours a day by Cable News Network (CNN). Newspapers like USA Today inform us of these events in easily digestible pieces; some newspapers, such as the Washington Post, have news available on Internet, the new “information superhighway.” At any time of the day or night we can delve into the mass of political information at our fingertips and discover what is happening in the world. Making decisions when faced with this great quantity of information is daunting.
This book details how people come to make decisions, specifically concerning civil liberties issues, in light of new information. Almost every day we are confronted with stories about actual or potential infractions against a certain people's rights. Hate crimes, such as cross burnings or the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, are not uncommon, and the passage of hate-crime laws to deter further actions by racist groups has become popular. Clashes between prolife and prochoice groups, and especially the recent murders of doctors who perform abortions, regularly make headline news. The influx of Haitian and Cuban refugees increases tensions in parts of the United States. Incidents of gay bashing and antihomosexual activities have gained particularly intensive news coverage, partly because of recent measures voted on in Oregon and Colorado.
2 - Antecedent Considerations and Contemporary Information
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 15-38
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The historical processes and events that have shaped a person's complex make-up can never be fully unraveled. Nevertheless, our task is not hopeless. A person's current behavior must be determined by factors that exert their effects right here and now. Past events are important only to the extent that they have left an enduring mark on the person, a mark that continues to wield its impact.
Icek Ajzen,Attitudes, Personality, and BehaviorIn this chapter, we introduce the conceptual framework that guides our analysis of tolerance judgments. At the most general level, we attempt to distinguish between long-term and short-term influences on these judgments. We will review briefly some theoretical approaches that have emphasized long-term influences and others that emphasized short-term influences. We then introduce the concepts we use to analyze the role of established convictions and more immediate environmental influences. Finally, we apply these conceptual distinctions to the existing literature on political tolerance.
For years scholars have studied long-term and short-term influences on political attitudes and behavior. Yet there is little agreement about the relative importance of these two sets of influences in shaping citizens' opinions and behaviors. On the one hand, the symbolic politics literature and personality studies emphasize the effects of early socialization. On the other hand, the rational choice and social cognition literatures pay greater attention to the role of information stemming from people's more immediate circumstances.
Contents
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
References
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 269-283
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Appendix B: Methodological Approaches and Scales
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 245-256
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
We present in this section the scale items and scales used in the reported research. We adopted the following guidelines in selecting scales. First, we relied on published scales where possible in order to use widely known measures. Second, we evaluated all scales for reliability and construct validity, dropping individual items that reduced the scale's reliability or undermined the construct validity. The items we dropped from the final scales are listed below and noted.
Third, in creating scales, missing data often pose a major problem. If a single response is omitted, the scale cannot be built and that case is treated as missing. With many scales the problem of missing data can often truncate a data set by one-fourth or even more. In order to preserve as many cases as possible, we used a mean value for all scales with the important provisos that a mean would be used if and only if the majority of items in a scale had a valid response. For example, if at least four out of six scale items had a valid response, then we used the mean score of the four, five, or six items as the scale value for that case (for seven items we required five valid responses, and so forth). If fewer than four items were valid responses (i.e., not missing) then a missing value was assigned this case.
5 - Threat and Political Tolerance
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 101-113
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Or in the night, imagining some fear, How easy is a bush suppos'd a bear!
William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's DreamA puzzle prompted our research. As we noted in Chapter 2, earlier survey research indicated that the single variable most strongly related to tolerance, perceptions of threat, is exogenous (Sullivan et al., 1982). This suggested that threat perceptions may be a contemporary judgment formed by relying on contemporary information, not an earlier acquired antecedent consideration. The findings in Chapter 4 are consistent with this hypothesis. Exposure to threat in the form of normative violations caused subjects to modulate their current tolerance judgments.
The 1978 NORC national study (shown in Figure 2.2) measured threat perceptions by asking respondents to describe on a seven-point scale their least-liked group using a list of polar adjectives. The adjective pairs were selected to represent a variety of familiar terms that respondents might find relevant in describing their appraisal of the objectionable group they confronted. Table 5.1 presents the bivariate correlations between political tolerance and these measures of threat, including a further measure, “How likely do you think it is that (group named) will be more popular in the future: very likely, somewhat likely, or very unlikely?”
There are two clusters of threat measures. The top group contains measures that reflect negative or positive normative evaluations. People judged the group to be trustworthy or untrustworthy, violent or nonviolent, and so forth.
PART I - Theoretical Background and Overview
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 1-2
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Our opening section establishes the theoretical framework of the book. This first section provides background information, particularly in Chapter 1, and clarifies our model of decision making in Chapters 2 and 3.
Chapter 1 argues that political tolerance persists as a crucial dilemma in any democracy. As we mature, we identify with certain groups and may resist challenges by outgroups. Our partisan natures also leave us vulnerable to intolerant arguments. However, at least two factors moderate our intolerance. First, the individualism of American culture encourages us to separate our own identity from that of the group. Second, the diversity of our society requires us to interact with those who differ from us; in doing so, we are likely to learn that differences may be superficial. Chapter 1 introduces a major theme of our book, the centrality of emotions in how we understand the world.
In Chapter 2 we present our model of tolerance judgments. We posit that tolerance judgments (and perhaps other political decisions) result from three major influences: predispositions, such as personality; standing decisions, such as political attitudes about democratic principles; and contemporary information about the particular situation. Chapter 2 explores the roots of this theory in the symbolic politics literature before turning to a discussion of how previous research in political tolerance has informed our model of decision making.
Chapter 3 returns to emotion. We reject the presumption that tolerance judgments are essentially cognitive and suggest instead the importance of emotion.
Notes
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 257-268
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
8 - Individual Differences: The Influence of Personality
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 160-178
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Certain inner psychological states … may help to determine whether an individual will be disposed to allow or suppress the exercise of freedom by people whose opinions, conduct, or social characteristics offend him or her.
McClosky and Brill, Dimensions of ToleranceThroughout this book, we have distinguished among the roles of predispositions, standing decisions, and contemporary information in shaping tolerance judgments. We conducted three basic experiments in which we examined the impact of contemporary threat perceptions on tolerance judgments, and we replicated these findings in a subsequent study. We assumed that the cumulative impact of predispositions generally was encapsulated in standing decisions, as measured by respondents' pretest tolerance and their support for democratic norms.
Much of our purpose in Chapter 4 was to analyze threat perceptions as contemporary information that provides meaningful guidance for people when they make concurrent tolerance judgments. In Chapter 5, however, we also analyzed the influence of global threat perceptions that constitute predispositions, and of least-liked group threat perceptions that constitute standing decisions. We found that these antecedent considerations are strongly related to political tolerance. Global threat perceptions and least-liked group threat perceptions lead some people to be less tolerant, independent of contemporary information, and affect how people process contemporary information and arrive at current tolerance judgments.
As noted in Chapter 3, Gray's emotional mood theory suggested how threat perceptions may affect political tolerance. We will also rely on Gray's theory and the circumplex model to examine the role of more stable personality traits.
Index
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 284-288
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
PART II - Contemporary Information and Political Tolerance Judgments
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 53-54
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this part, we begin the process of empirically testing the theoretical model of tolerance judgments we laid out in Part I. Since past research has focused almost exclusively on the effects of antecedent considerations on tolerance, we must first establish that contemporary information makes a difference. If tolerance judgments are based solely on the predispositions and standing decisions people hold, then a major part of our theoretical argument – especially the role of threat as contemporary information – would be fallacious. On the other hand, if contemporary information influences tolerance judgments even when we take antecedent considerations into account, then we have taken the first step toward substantiating our theory.
We empirically test our basic model in two ways. First, in Chapter 4 we conduct survey-experiments that allow us both to measure the crucial antecedent considerations found to be important in past research and to manipulate the information subjects receive to determine if certain kinds of contemporary information affect tolerance more than others. If our theoretical model is correct, we should find that antecedent considerations play a major role in determining contemporary tolerance judgments, but that contemporary information matters as well. Specifically, as we argued in Chapter 3, it is threatening information, especially about a group's behavior, that should significantly influence people's tolerance judgments. Second, in Appendix 4A we lay out, for interested readers, our checks to validate the studies.
7 - Source Credibility, Political Knowledge, and Malice in Making Tolerance Judgments – The Texas Experiment
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 133-159
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Since we conducted our original experiment in 1989, a number of events have occurred to alter the political environment related to the study of political tolerance. The Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict, the murder of doctors by prolife advocates, and the rise and fall of David Duke provide prominent examples of dramatic events involving political tolerance issues that have occurred since our initial experiments. Highly visible and salient incidents can activate citizens' attitude structures – stimulating cogitation and arousing emotional reactions – that under more mundane circumstance would remain dormant. These sensational events raised the salience of political, social, and racial tolerance issues. It is therefore vital to establish that the subsequent change in political context did not alter in fundamental ways the processes by which citizens arrive at their tolerance judgments. In short, a substantial replication of our basic findings from the late 1980s and early 1990s would provide greater confidence that our results are not entirely time bound, but can be generally applied to the process of making political tolerance judgments.
In addition to attempting to verify the basic findings obtained in the studies described in Chapters 4 and 6, the research described in this chapter was designed to test a more completely specified model of political tolerance judgments. This research incorporated an examination of the role of source credibility and political expertise.
Appendix A: Hypothetical Group Scenarios and Manipulations
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 229-244
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
NATIONALIST PARTY OF AMERICA (NPA)
Now we would like you to read the following scenario about a hypothetical group that has organized in the United States. While you read the scenario, please think about how you and the people in your social network would react to such a group.
Suppose it is the late 1990s and a new political group has been formed in the United States. It is an extremist group that evolved from a pro-Nazi group of the 1980s. This group – the Nationalist Party of America (NPA) – has pledged to rid the United States of Jewish influence which they believe has grown too great. They believe that Jews control the international monetary system, and ultimately the economy of the United States. Recent evidence of this, they believe, is the farm crisis and the way it has been handled by big government and big business, particularly the Jewish-controlled banks. They believe that American society has lost its small family farms and businesses and blame the Jews for this. They are also beginning to worry more and more about the power and influence of Blacks as well, but have decided to concentrate for now on the Jews.
The NPA has not been very specific about the actions they propose to take, but there are hints that they would like to restrict the economic and political rights of Jews and perhaps even Blacks.
With Malice toward Some
- How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
- George E. Marcus, John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, Sandra L. Wood
-
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995
-
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.
9 - Intensity, Motivations, and Behavioral Intentions
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 181-208
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Democratic viability is, to begin with, saved by the fact that those who are most confused about democratic ideas are also likely to be politically apathetic and without significant influence. Their role in the nation's decision process is so small that their “misguided” opinions or non-opinions have little practical consequence for stability. If they contribute little to the vitality of the system, neither are they likely to do much harm.
Herbert McClosky, “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics”Nonprejudiced attitudes, according to Devine (1989), require conscious, controlled processing to override the automatic, nonconscious response of stereotyping. Staub (1989) makes a similar argument that devaluation and scapegoating are also often automatic. Many people respond to outgroups by devaluing their members and using them as scapegoats when they are forced to live under difficult conditions, but others consciously inhibit these automatic responses. The latter have a developed sense of individual responsibility (Staub, 1989) and internalized values (Devine, 1989; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989). They evaluate their psychological reactions in light of their personal goals, values, and beliefs, and often set their instinctive reactions aside. This controlled processing, however, is often difficult.
Political tolerance fits into this genre of attitudes that are difficult to hold: the tolerant find a group to be noxious and its espoused ideas offensive, yet they are willing to give the members of this group freedom of speech and of assembly, and the right to be a vocal part of the democratic political system.
6 - Democratic Values as Standing Decisions and Contemporary Information
- George E. Marcus, Williams College, Massachusetts, John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sandra L. Wood, University of North Texas
-
- Book:
- With Malice toward Some
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 1995, pp 114-132
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Clearly the American civil liberties record has deep flaws in it, especially in social and racial justice and toleration of radical political expression, and clearly the record is not as pristine as American ideals are. Yet it must also be remembered that the record would probably not be as good as it is if American ideals were not so high, for they act as a constant standard and constant challenge.
Robert Justin Goldstein (1987)The study of political tolerance remains intriguing, to a great extent, because of a paradox found repeatedly in empirical studies. Americans express strong support for abstract ideals such as free speech and minority rights. The standing decision on democratic principles, absent any context, seems to be one of tolerance. Yet, when faced with unpopular groups exercising particular rights in a particular situation, many people want to limit the freedom of such groups. Everyone should have a right to march to express their political ideas, but not the Nazis in Skokie – or a group I dislike in my town! This disparity could occur because decisions about particular groups conflict with standing decisions about democratic values. It could also occur because contemporaneous information about a particular group and its behavior lead people to arrive at judgments that differ somewhat from their standing decision.
In this chapter, we begin to take seriously that most people actually believe their expressions of democratic ideals.