Lay persons' versus psychologists' judgments of psychologically aggressive actions by a husband and wife

Literature assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward social issues has demonstrated that mental health professionals and lay persons often differ greatly. To add to the normative information in the field of psychological abuse and to determine whether the differences previously found between mental health professionals and lay persons extend to this field, a sample from each group rated psychologically aggressive items by a husband toward his wife. For the 102 items, psychologists were more likely to label the behaviors as "psychological abuse," but this tendency was due to psychologists considering the behaviors as either "always" or "possibly" abusive, whereas lay persons demonstrated a bimodal response pattern of rating the behaviors as "always" or "never" psychological abuse. Lay persons were much more likely than psychologists to rate items high in terms of severity level, however. The two groups used different contextual factors for determining that a behavior was psychological abuse when they initially were uncertain that it was abusive.     

Gender,Politics and the State: What Do Middle Eastern Women Want?

The essays that follow are drawn from invited presentations of the Conference Group on the Middle East, which meets annually in conjunction with the American Political Science Association. The essays published here were presented in San Francisco, August 29-September 1, 1996, on one of three panels dealing with gender, politics and the state. Thanks to the continuing generosity of the Ford Foundation, five scholars from the Middle East were able to participate. The contributors would like to thank Farhad Kazemi, Deborah Gerner and Jean Lecafor their excellent comments at the panels. Louis J. Cantori, who has shepherded the Conference Group since its creation by a group of University of Chicago graduates more than a decade ago, deserves special thanks for his tireless commitment.     

Information, Interests, and Environmental Regulation

This study contributes to the understanding of informational approaches to bringing about compliance with environmental regulations with particular attention to differences in the influence of information provided by different information sources. Based on theorizing from a combination of information processing and interest group literatures, we develop hypotheses about regulatees' reliance upon and the influence of different sources of information. We test these hypotheses for Danish farmers' compliance with agro-environmental rules. Our findings show that information plays a role in bringing about regulatory compliance, but its influence is not as strong and is less direct than might be thought to be the case. In addition, we show that not all information sources have the same influence. The findings demonstrate that interest groups have important roles in information provision and legitimization of policies that have often been assumed in the literature but have rarely been empirically examined.     

The Scandinavian Model and Women's Interests: The Issues of Universalism and Corporatism*

Theorizing about women and politics and discussions of women and the welfare state have often neglected contextual factors, such as institutional and country-specific variables. By problematizing the following three concepts—the Scandinavian model, universalism, and corporatism—this article seeks to focus attention on system variations and their possible consequences for women.     

Undermining the Rule of Law: Democratization and the Dark Side of Police Reform in Mexico

This article asks whether democratization, under certain historical conditions, may relate to the deteriorating rule of law. Focusing on Mexico City, where police corruption is significant, this study argues that the institutionalized legacies of police power inherited from Mexico's one-party system have severely constrained its newly democratic state's efforts to reform the police. Mexico's democratic transition has created an environment of partisan competition that, combined with decentralization of the state and fragmentation of its coercive and administrative apparatus, exacerbates intrastate and bureaucratic conflicts. These factors prevent the government from reforming the police sufficiently to guarantee public security and earn citizen trust, even as the same factors reduce capacity, legitimacy, and citizen confidence in both the police and the democratically elected state. This article suggests that when democracy serves to undermine rather than strengthen the rule of law, more democracy can actually diminish democracy and its quality.