Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:54:46.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Intensity, Motivations, and Behavioral Intentions

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

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
With Malice toward Some
How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
, pp. 181 - 208
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 [email protected] 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
×