Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:2019Hits:24754530Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   171667


Ecology of Extremists’ Communications: Messaging Effectiveness, Social Environments and Individual Attributes / Hamid, Nafees   Journal Article
Hamid, Nafees Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract Many prevention and countering of violent extremism experts place too much emphasis on the radicalising power of online mass distributed messaging by violent extremist groups. Instead, Nafees Hamid argues that radicalisation takes place in a social ecology within which the messaging of terrorist groups plays only a small role. This article shows that people are resistant to mass persuasion and that certain environments are more conducive to the spread of extremist messaging. Small-group dynamics are useful to explain the spread of ideas and that altering these dynamics can provide a buffer against some ideas while enabling others.
        Export Export
2
ID:   181543


When poor students attend rich schools: do affluent social environments increase or decrease participation? / Mendelberg, Tali   Journal Article
Mendelberg, Tali Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract College is a key pathway to political participation, and lower-income individuals especially stand to benefit from it given their lower political participation. However, rising inequality makes college disproportionately more accessible to high-income students. One consequence of inequality is a prevalence of predominantly affluent campuses. Colleges are thus not insulated from the growing concentration of affluence in American social spaces. We ask how affluent campus spaces affect college’s ability to equalize political participation. Predominantly affluent campuses may create participatory norms that especially elevate low-income students’ participation. Alternatively, they may create affluence-centered social norms that marginalize these students, depressing their participation. A third possibility is equal effects, leaving the initial gap unchanged. Using a large panel survey (201,011 students), controls on many characteristics, and tests for selection bias, we find that predominantly affluent campuses increase political participation to a similar extent for all income groups, thus leaving the gap unchanged. We test psychological, academic, social, political, financial, and institutional mechanisms for the effects. The results carry implications for the self-reinforcing link between inequality and civic institutions.
        Export Export