The DOI matches its Crossref record.
With malice toward some: how people make civil liberties judgments
Abstract
Preface: Political tolerance and democratic life Part I. Theoretical Background and Overview: 1. Political tolerance and democratic practice 2. Antecedent considerations and contemporary information 3. Thinking and mood Part II. Contemporary Information and Political Tolerance Judgments: 4. Tolerance judgments and contemporary information - the basic studies Appendix 4A. The basic experiments - manipulation checks Part III. 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 IV. Implications and Conclusions: 9. Intensity, motivations, and behavioral intentions 10. Human nature and political tolerance Appendices Bibliography.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964
Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2111684 · Cited by 2,421
Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069
Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00144.x · Cited by 948
Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592704000623 · Cited by 935
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1996-11-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 34-1778-34-1778
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1967430235
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: With malice toward some: how people make civil liberties judgments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.34-1778
- The paper
- With malice toward some: how people make civil liberties judgments. (1996). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.34-1778
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
