Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

149375-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This thesis looks at the 1842 Supreme Court ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the events leading up to this case, and the subsequent legislative fallout from the decision. The Supreme Court rendered this ruling in an effort to clear up confusion regarding the conflict between state and federal law with

This thesis looks at the 1842 Supreme Court ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the events leading up to this case, and the subsequent legislative fallout from the decision. The Supreme Court rendered this ruling in an effort to clear up confusion regarding the conflict between state and federal law with regard to fugitive slave recovery. Instead, the ambiguities contained within the ruling further complicated the issue of fugitive slave recovery. This complication commenced when certain state legislatures exploited an inadvertent loophole contained in the ruling. Thus, instead of mollifying sectional tension by generating a clear and concise process of fugitive slave recovery, the Supreme Court exacerbated sectional tension. Through an analysis of newspapers, journals, laws and other contemporary sources, this thesis demonstrates that Prigg v. Pennsylvania and the subsequent legislative reactions garnered much attention. Through a review of secondary literature covering this period, a lack of demonstrable coverage of this court case emerges, which shows that scant coverage has been paid to this important episode in antebellum America. Additionally, the lack of attention paid to this court case ignores a critical episode of rising sectional tension during the 1840s.
ContributorsCoughlin, John (Author) / Schermerhorn, Calvin (Thesis advisor) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Thesis advisor) / Whitaker, Matthew (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
141315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.

ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Shockley, Ellie (Author) / Schilke, Oliver (Author)
Created2016