To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
This book is premised on a very powerful social/educational concern about college retention rates: one-third of first-year students seriously consider leaving college during their first term, and only half of all students who start college ultimately graduate. This book examines the first year of college from a variety of perspectives to paint a comprehensive picture of the intersecting challenges facing today's students and higher education institutions. Technological advances, increases in college attendance costs, and increasing political pressure on colleges to prove their value have changed the landscape of the first year of college, but researchers have identified new approaches to improve student and institutional success that have shown considerable success and promise. In this comprehensive volume, top educational researchers explore topics of student success, persistence, and retention in the first year of college.
Few controlled studies have examined the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs for prevention of relapse in patients with bipolar I disorder.
To evaluate whether olanzapine plus either lithium or valproate reduces the rate of relapse, compared with lithium or valproate alone.
Patients achieving syndromic remission after 6 weeks'treatment with olanzapine plus either lithium (0.6–1.2 mmol/l) or valproate (50–125 μg/ml) received lithium or valproate plus either olanzapine 5–20 mg/day (combination therapy) or placebo (monotherapy), and were followed in a double-masked trial for 18 months.
The treatment difference in time to relapse into either mania or depression was not significant for syndromic relapse (median time to relapse: combination therapy 94 days, monotherapy40.5 days; P=0.742), but was significant for symptomatic relapse (combination therapy 163 days, monotherapy42 days; P=0.023).
Patients taking olanzapine added to lithium or valproate experienced sustained symptomatic remission, but not syndromic remission, for longer than those receiving lithium or valproate monotherapy.
This chapter examines the political significance of gender by focusing on its consequences for politically relevant social interaction among South Bend respondents during the 1984 presidential election campaign. What is the extent of political discussion between men and women? Between husbands and wives? How do husbands and wives evaluate their spouses as political discussion partners? What are the implications for the transmission and diffusion of political information?
The political significance of gender extends beyond its relevance to political issues and appeals, and thus the role of gender in politics is not fully captured by differences in attitudes and opinions between men and women. Gender is important because it is a primary element in the structure of social interaction, and processes of social interaction are central to political life. Citizens do not formulate their political preferences or exercise their political choices in a social vacuum, but rather in response to a multitude of political messages, many of which are conveyed through personal communication. For these reasons, the political significance of gender is directly related to its potential for structuring social interaction, thereby affecting the transmission and diffusion of political messages. And thus, before turning to an analysis of organization effects on the transmission of political information, this chapter examines gender effects on political discussion.
The conventional tools of political science are not well suited for the study of gender in politics.
What are the consequences of one-party politics for the behavior of individual citizens? How do these individual-level consequences serve to perpetuate one-party dominance? One important mechanism of this self-perpetuation is the institutionally disadvantaged position of the minority party, particularly with respect to the participatory incentives attached to primary election participation. Our argument is as follows: (1) The best way for a minority partisan to maximize her influence in a primary election is often to vote the majority party's primary ballot. But (2) as a result of such crossover voting the minority party loses an important manifestation of support – participation in its own primary election. And thus (3) the minority party demonstrates a level of support that greatly exaggerates the extent to which it is a minority. Furthermore, (4) many individuals who participate in majority party affairs by voting in majority party primaries are likely to develop loyalties to the majority party.
What are the consequences of local one-party politics for the behavior of individual citizens? How do these individual-level consequences serve to perpetuate one-party dominance? These questions are as important today as when they were first addressed by V. O. Key (1949), Alexander Heard (1952), Warren Miller (1956), and Robert Putnam (1966). Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, American politics has not been fully nationalized, and American citizens do not reside in local communities that are politically indistinguishable. Indeed, relatively few of us live in communities that are genuinely competitive in local political contests.
The question arises quite naturally: What difference does it all make? We have argued that democratic citizenship involves something more than individually isolated and politically independent citizens making choices that are socially and politically divorced from their surroundings. Rather, citizens are fundamentally interdependent – they depend on one another for political information and guidance, and in the process of becoming informed they pass along distinctive interpretations and viewpoints. Moreover, the social communication of political information is itself subject to the political and social environment. Partisan dominance, party organization, and other organizational and institutional formations serve both to accelerate and impede the transmission and recognition of particular viewpoints. But if we are correct, does anything really change? Does the argument generate implications for political analysis in general and our understanding of democratic electoral politics in particular?
Perhaps the most important consequence lies in the ratification of something that Tip O'Neill knew all along: All politics is local politics. The Speaker may have had a different point of reference in mind when he made the observation, but our argument runs in a complementary direction. The point of reference for our own work is the construct of the national electorate. Journalists and pundits make reference to it, political scientists explain it, pollsters take its pulse. And while the concept of a national electorate is often quite useful, it remains an intellectual construct – a convenience for purposes of summarizing political behavior.
To what extent do people impose their own political preferences on the search for political information? To what extent is such an effort limited by the availability of alternative information sources? This chapter develops a model of discussant choice that incorporates individual political preferences as they operate within the boundaries and constraints of the social context. Special attention is given to the consequences attendant on minority and majority preference distributions in the local social milieu. We argue that rational voters exhibit rational information search behavior, but the outcome of rational search is a compromise between individual political preference and socially structured discussion opportunities.
Citizens in a democracy exercise free choice when they obtain political information. They avoid some information sources and they seek out others based on their own political preferences and viewpoints. Indeed, the availability of informational alternatives is one of the defining characteristics of democratic politics. Liberals are free to read liberal newspapers and conservatives are free to read conservative newspapers. More important for this analysis, Democrats are free to seek out other Democrats as political discussion partners, and Republicans are free to seek out other Republicans. While this sort of free informational choice is central to democracy, it is also constrained by social structure. Free choice operates within opportunities and constraints that are imposed by the social context, and the central issues pursued here are two.