text:
Attitude change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Attitudes are associated beliefs and behaviors towards some object.[1] They are not stable, and because of the communication and behavior of other people, are subject to change by social influences, as well as by the individual's motivation to maintain cognitive consistency when cognitive dissonance occurs—when two attitudes or attitude and behavior conflict. Attitudes and attitude objects are functions of affective and cognitive components. It has been suggested that the inter-structural composition of an associative network can be altered by the activation of a single node. Thus, by activating an affective or emotional node, attitude change may be possible, though affective and cognitive components tend to be intertwined.[2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Bases
1.1 Compliance
1.2 Identification
1.3 Internalization
2 Emotion-based
3 Dual models: depth of processing
3.1 Heuristic-systematic model of information processing
3.1.1 Systematic processing
3.1.2 Heuristic processing
3.2 Elaboration likelihood model
4 Cognitive dissonance theory
5 Sorts of studies
5.1 Belief rationalization
5.2 Comparative processing
6 See also
7 References
Bases[edit]
There are three bases for attitude change: compliance, identification, and internalization. These three processes represent the different levels of attitude change.[3]
Compliance[edit]
One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.
Compliance refers to a change in behavior based on consequences, such as an individual's hopes to gain rewards or avoid punishment from another group or person. The individual does not necessarily experience changes in beliefs or evaluations of an attitude object, but rather is influenced by the social outcomes of adopting a change in behavior.[3] The individual is also often aware that he or she is being urged to respond in a certain way.
Compliance was demonstrated through a series of laboratory experiments known as the Asch experiments. Experiments led by Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College asked groups of students to participate in a "vision test". In reality, all but one of the participants were confederates of the experimenter, and the study was really about how the remaining student would react to the confederates' behavior. Participants were asked to pick, out of three line options, the line that is the same length as a sample and were asked to give the answer out loud. Unbeknown to the participants, Asch had placed a number of confederates to deliberately give the wrong answer before the participant. The results showed that 75% of responses were in line with majority influence and were the same answers the confederates picked.[4] Variations in the experiments showed that compliance rates increased as the number of confederates increased, and the plateau was reached with around 15 confederates. The likelihood of compliance dropped with minority opposition, even if only one confederate gave the correct answer. The basis for compliance is founded on the fundamental idea that people want to be accurate and right.[5]
Identification[edit]
Identification explains one's change of beliefs and affect in order to be similar to someone one admires or likes. In this case, the individual adopts the new attitude, not due to the specific content of the attitude object, but because it is associated with the desired relationship. Often, children's attitudes on race, or their political party affiliations are adopted from their parents' attitudes and beliefs.[3]
Internalization[edit]
Internalization refers to the change in beliefs and affect when one finds the content of the attitude to be intrinsically rewarding, and thus leads to actual change in beliefs or evaluations of an attitude object. The new attitude or behavior is consistent with the individual's value system, and tends to be merged with the individual's existing values and beliefs. Therefore, behaviors adopted through internalization are due to the content of the attitude object.[3]
The expectancy-value theory is based on internalization of attitude change. This model states that the behavior towards some object is a function of an individual's intent, which is a function of one's overall attitude towards the action.
Emotion-based[edit]
Emotion plays a major role in persuasion, social influence, and attitude change. Much of attitude research has emphasised the importance of affective or emotion components.[6] Emotion works hand-in-hand with the cognitive process, or the way we think, about an issue or situation. Emotional appeals are commonly found in advertising, health campaigns and political messages. Recent examples include no-smoking health campaigns (see tobacco advertising) and political campaigns emphasizing the fear of terrorism. Attitude change based on emotions can be seen vividly in serial killers who are faced with major stress.[7] There is considerable empirical support for the idea that emotions in the form of fear arousal,[8][9] empathy,[10] or a positive mood[11] can enhance attitude change under certain conditions.[12]
Important factors that influence the impact of emotional appeals include self-efficacy, attitude accessibility, issue involvement, and message/source features. Attitudes that are central to one's being are highly resistant to change while others that are less fixed may change with new experiences or information. A new attitude (e.g. to time-keeping or absenteeism or quality) may challenge existing beliefs or norms so creating a feeling of psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. It is difficult to measure attitude change since attitudes may only be inferred and there might be significant divergence between those publicly declared and privately held. Self-efficacy is a perception of one's own human agency; in other words, it is the perception of our own ability to deal with a situation.[13] It is an important variable in emotional appeal messages because it dictates a person's ability to deal with both the emotion and the situation. For example, if a person is not self-efficacious about their ability to impact the global environment, they are not likely to change their attitude or behaviour about global warming.
Affective forecasting, otherwise known as intuition or the prediction of emotion, also impacts attitude change. Research suggests that predicting emotions is an important component of decision making, in addition to the cognitive processes.[14] How we feel about an outcome may override purely cognitive rationales. In terms of research methodology, the challenge for researchers is measuring emotion and subsequent impacts on attitude. Since we cannot see into the brain, various models and measurement tools have been constructed to obtain emotion and attitude information. Measures may include the use of physiological cues like facial expressions, vocal changes, and other body rate measures.[6] For instance, fear is associated with raised eyebrows, increased heart rate and increased body tension.[15] Other methods include concept or network mapping, and using primes or word cues.[16]
Dual models: depth of processing[edit]
Many dual process models are used to explain the affective (emotional) and cognitive processing and interpretations of messages, as well as the different depths of attitude change. These include the heuristic-systematic model of information processing and the elaboration likelihood model.
Heuristic-systematic model of information processing[edit]
Main article: Heuristic-systematic model of information processing
The heuristic-systematic model of information processing describes two depths in the processing of attitude change, systematic processing and heuristic processing. In this model[17] information is either processed in a high-involvement and high-effort systematic way, or information is processed through shortcuts known as heuristics. For example, emotions are affect-based heuristics, in which feelings and gut-feeling reactions are often used as shortcuts.
Systematic processing[edit]
Systematic processing occurs when individuals are motivated and have high cognition to process a message.[18] Individuals using systematic processing are motivated to pay attention and have the cognitive ability to think deeply about a message; they are persuaded by the content of the message, such as the strength or logic of the argument. Motivation can be determined by many factors, such as how personally relevant the topic is, and cognitive ability can be determined by how knowledgeable an individual is on the message topic, or whether or not there is a distraction in the room. Individuals who receive a message through systematic processing usually internalize the message, resulting in a longer and more stable attitude change.
According to the heuristic-systematic model of information processing, people are motivated to use systematic processing when they want to achieve a "desired level of confidence" in their judgments.[19] There are factors that have been found to increase the use of systematic processing; these factors are associated with either decreasing an individual's actual confidence or increasing an individual's perceived confidence. These factors may include framing persuasive messages in an unexpected manner;[20] self-relevancy of the message.
Systematic processing has been shown to be beneficial in social influence settings. Systematic reasoning has been shown to be successful in producing more valid solutions during group discussions and greater solution accuracy. Shestowsky's (1998) research in dyad discussions revealed that the individual in the dyad who had high motivation and high need in cognition had the greater impact on group decisions.[21]
Heuristic processing[edit]
Heuristic processing occurs when individuals have low motivation and/or low cognitive ability to process a message.[18] Instead of focusing on the argument of the message, recipients using heuristic processing focus on more readily accessible information and other unrelated cues, such as the authority or attractiveness of the speaker. Individuals who process a message through heuristic processing do not internalize the message, and thus any attitude change resulting from the persuasive message is temporary and unstable.
For example, people are more likely to grant favors if reasons are provided. A study shows that when people said, "Excuse me, I have five pages to xerox. May I use the copier?" they received a positive response of 60%. The statement, "Excuse me, I have five pages to xerox. I am in a rush. May I use the copier?" produced a 95% success rate.[22]
Heuristic processing examples include social proof, reciprocity, authority, and liking.
Social proof is the means by which we utilize other people's behaviors in order to form our own beliefs. Our attitudes toward following the majority change when a situation appears uncertain or ambiguous to us, when the source is an expert, or when the source is similar to us. In a study conducted by Sherif, he discovered the power of crowds when he worked with experimenters who looked up in the middle of New York City. As the number of the precipitating group increased, the percentage of passers-by who looked up increased as well.[23]
Reciprocity is returning a favor. People are more likely to return a favor if they have a positive attitude towards the other party. Reciprocities also develop interdependence and societal bonds.
Authority plays a role in attitude change in situations where there are superior-inferior relationships. We are more likely to become obedient to authorities when the authority's expertise is perceived as high and when we anticipate receiving rewards. A famous study that constitutes the difference in attitude change is the Milgram experiment, where people changed their attitude to "shocking their partner" more when they followed authorities whereas the subjects themselves would have not done so otherwise.
Liking has shown that if one likes another party, one is more inclined to carry out a favor. The attitude changes are based on whether an individual likes an idea or person, and if he or she does not like the other party, he/she may not carry out the favor or do so out of obligation. Liking can influence one's opinions through factors such as physical attractiveness, similarities, compliments, contact and cooperation.[24]
Elaboration likelihood model[edit]
Main article: Elaboration likelihood model
The elaboration likelihood model is similar in concept to and shares many ideas with other dual processing models, such as the heuristic-systematic model of information processing.[25] In the elaboration likelihood model, cognitive processing is the central route and affective/emotion processing is often associated with the peripheral route.[26] The central route pertains to an elaborate cognitive processing of information while the peripheral route relies on cues or feelings. The ELM suggests that true attitude change only happens through the central processing route that incorporates both cognitive and affective components as opposed to the more heuristics-based peripheral route. This suggests that motivation through emotion alone will not result in an attitude change.
Cognitive dissonance theory[edit]
Main article: Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance, a theory originally developed by Festinger (1957), is the idea that people experience a sense of guilt or uneasiness when two linked cognitions are inconsistent, such as when there are two conflicting attitudes about a topic, or inconsistencies between one's attitude and behavior on a certain topic. The basic idea of the Cognitive Dissonance Theory relating to attitude change, is that people are motivated to reduce dissonance which can be achieved through changing their attitudes and beliefs.[27] Cooper & Fazio's (1984) have also added that cognitive dissonance does not arise from any simple cognitive inconsistency, but rather results from freely chosen behavior that may bring about negative consequences.[28] These negative consequences may be threats to the consistency, stability, predictability, competence, moral goodness of the self-concept,[29] or violation of general self-integrity.[30]
Research has suggested multiple routes that cognitive dissonance can be reduced. Self-affirmation has been shown to reduce dissonance,[30] however it is not always the mode of choice when trying to reduce dissonance. When multiple routes are available, it has been found that people prefer to reduce dissonance by directly altering their attitudes and behaviors rather than through self-affirmation.[31] People who have high levels of self-esteem, who are postulated to possess abilities to reduce dissonance by focusing on positive aspects of the self, have also been found to prefer modifying cognitions, such as attitudes and beliefs, over self-affirmation.[32] A simple example of cognitive dissonance resulting in attitude change would be when a heavy smoker learns that his sister died young from lung cancer due to heavy smoking as well, this individual experiences conflicting cognitions: the desire to smoke, and the knowledge that smoking could lead to death and a desire not to die. In order to reduce dissonance, this smoker could change his behavior (i.e. stop smoking), change his attitude about smoking (i.e. smoking is harmful), or retain his original attitude about smoking and modify his new cognition to be consistent with the first one--"I also work out so smoking won't be harmful to me". Thus, attitude change is achieved when individuals experience feelings of uneasiness or guilt due to cognitive dissonance, and actively reduce the dissonance through changing their attitude, beliefs, or behavior relating in order to achieve consistency with the inconsistent cognitions.
Sorts of studies[edit]
Carl Hovland and his band of persuasion researchers learned a great deal during World War 2 and later at Yale about the process of attitude change.[33]
High-credibility sources lead to more attitude change immediately following the communication act, but a sleeper effect occurs in which the source is forgotten after a period of time.
Mild fear appeals lead to more attitude change than strong fear appeals.Propagandists had often used fear appeals. Hoveland's evidence about the effect of such appeals suggested that a source should be cautious in using fear appeals, because strong fear messages may interfere with the intended persuasion attempt.
Belief rationalization[edit]
The process of how people change their own attitudes has been studied for years. Belief rationalization has been recognized as an important aspect to understand this process.[34] The stability of people's past attitudes can be influenced if they hold beliefs that are inconsistent with their own behaviors. The influence of past behavior on current attitudes is stable when little information conflicts with the behavior. Alternatively, people's attitudes may lean more radically toward the prior behavior if the conflict makes it difficult to ignore, and forces them to rationalize their past behavior.[35] For example, if you believe that Greece is a beautiful country and that the people there are very hardworking, then your belief will be stable or even become reinforced when you visit the country and are amazed by its beauty. However, when you interact with local Greeks, you realize they are in actuality not as hard-working as you had imagined. This inconsistency becomes difficult to ignore once it stands out.
Attitudes are often restructured at the time people are asked to report them.[36][37] As a result, inconsistencies between the information that enters into the reconstruction and the original attitudes can produce changes in prior attitudes, whereas consistency between these elements often elicits stability in prior attitudes. Individuals need to resolve the conflict between their own behaviors and the subsequent beliefs. However, people usually align themselves with their attitudes and beliefs instead of their behaviors. More importantly, this process of resolving people's cognitive conflicts that emerges cuts across both self-perception and dissonance even when the associated effect may only be strong in changing prior attitudes
Comparative processing[edit]
Human judgment is comparative in nature.[38] Departing from identifying people's need to justify their own beliefs in the context of their own behaviors, psychologists also believe that people have the need to carefully evaluate new messages on the basis of whether these messages support or contradict with prior messages, regardless of whether they can recall the prior messages after they reach a conclusion.[39] This comparative processing mechanism is built on "information-integration theory"[40] and "social judgement theory".[41] Both of these theories have served to model people's attitude change in judging the new information while they haven't adequately explained the influential factors that motivate people to integrate the information.
More recent work in the area of persuasion has further explored this "comparative processing" from the perspective of focusing on comparing between different sets of information on one single issue or object instead of simply making comparisons among different issues or objects.[42] As previous research demonstrated, analyzing information on one target product may trigger less impact of comparative information than comparing this product with the same product under competing brands.[43][44]
When people compare different sets of information on one single issue or object, the effect of people's effort to compare new information with prior information seemed to correlate with the perceived strength of the new, strong information when considered jointly with the initial information. Comparison processes can be enhanced when prior evaluations, associated information, or both are accessible. People will simply construct a current judgment based on the new information or adjust the prior judgment when they are not able to retrieve the information from prior messages. The impact this comparative process can have on people's attitude change is mediated by changes in the strength of new information perceived by receivers. The effects of comparison on judgment change were mediated by changes in the perceived strength of the information. These findings above have wide range of applications in social marketing, political communication, and health promotion. For example, designing an advertisement that is counteractive against an existing attitude towards a behavior or policy is perhaps most effective if the advertisement uses the same format, characters, or music of ads associated with the initial attitudes.
See also[edit]
Attitudinal fix
Fear appeals
Reactance (psychology)
Yale attitude change approach
References[edit]
Jump up ^ McGuire, W., Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. Handbook of social psychology: Special fields and applications, 2, 233–346.
Jump up ^ Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure and resistance to change. In R. Petty and J. Kosnik (Eds.), Attitude Strength. (pp. 413–432). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Kelman, H.C. (1938). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.
Jump up ^ Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).
Jump up ^ Cialdini, Robert B.; Goldstein, Noah J. (2004). "SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and Conformity". Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55: 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.
^ Jump up to: a b Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1992). On defining attitude and attitude theory: Once more with feeling. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.) Attitude Structure and Function (pp. 407–427). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jump up ^ Davis, E. E. (1965). Attitude change: A review and bibliography of selected research. Paris: Unesco.
Jump up ^ Leventhal, 1970
Jump up ^ Maddux & Rogers, 1980
Jump up ^ Shelton & Rogers, 1981
Jump up ^ Janis, Kaye, & Kirschner, 1965
Jump up ^ Leventhal, H. A. (1970)Findings and theory in the study of fear communications.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 120-186). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Jump up ^ Bandura, A. (1982). "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency". American Psychologist. 37: 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122.
Jump up ^ Loewenstein, G. (2007). Affect regulation and affective forecasting. In Gross, J. J. (Ed.) Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 180–203). New York: Guilford.
Jump up ^ Dillard, J. (1994). Rethinking the study of fear appeals: An emotional perspective. Communication Theory, 4, 295-323.
Jump up ^ Shavelson, R. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1975). Construct validation: Methodology and application to three measures of cognitive structure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 67-85.
Jump up ^ Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh. (Eds.), Unintended thought, pp. 212-252. New York: Guilford.
^ Jump up to: a b Chaiken, S. (1980). "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion. Journal of". Personality & Social Psychology. 39 (5): 752–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
Jump up ^ Wood, Wendy (2000). "Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence". Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51: 539–570. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539. PMID 10751980.
Jump up ^ Smith, SM; Petty, RE. (1996). "Message framing and persuasion: a message processing analysis". Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22: 257–68.
Jump up ^ Shestowsky, D; Wegener, DT; Fabrigar, LR. (1998). "Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: individual differences in impact on dyadic decision". J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74: 1317–28. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1317.
Jump up ^ Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz (1978)
Jump up ^ Sherif (1936)
Jump up ^ Cialdini, R.B. (2008). Influence: Science and practice (5th edition). New York: Harper Collins.
Jump up ^ Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (20050. Then handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jump up ^ Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T. (1986). "The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion" (PDF). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19: 123–205.
Jump up ^ Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jump up ^ Cooper J, Fazio RH. 1984. A new look at dissonance theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.17:229–66
Jump up ^ Aronson E. 1992. The return of the repressed:Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychol.Inq. 3:303–11
^ Jump up to: a b Steele CM. 1988. The psychology of selfaffirmation.Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.21:261–302
Jump up ^ Stone J, Wiegand AW, Cooper J, Aronson E.1997. When exemplification fails: hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. J.Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72:54–65.
Jump up ^ Gibbons FX, Eggleston TJ, Benthin AC. 1997.Cognitive reactions to smoking relapse: the reciprocal relation between dissonance and self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72:184–95
Jump up ^ Rogers, Everett M:A history of communication study
Jump up ^ Albarracin, D., & McNatt, P. S. (2005). Maintenance and decay of past behavior influences: Anchoring attitudes on beliefs following inconsistent actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 719-733.
Jump up ^ Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Jump up ^ Erber, M. W., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude stability, and the effects of analyzing reasons. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion (Vol. 4, pp. 433-454. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Jump up ^ Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (1995). Repetition and evaluative extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion (Vol. 4, pp. 43-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jump up ^ Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472
Jump up ^ Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.
Jump up ^ Anderson, N. H. (1959). A test model of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 371–381.
Jump up ^ Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Placement of items on controversial issues. In M. Sherif & C. Hovland (Eds.), Social judgment (pp. 99–126). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jump up ^ Albarracin, D., Wallace, H. M., Hart, W., & Brown, R. D. (2012). How judgments change following comparison of current and prior information. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 44-55
Jump up ^ Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56
Jump up ^ Muthukrishnan, A. V., Pham, M. T., & Mungale´, A. (2001). Does greater amount of information always bolster attitudinal resistance? Marketing Letters, 12, 131–144
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attitude_change&oldid=812771699"
Categories:
Human behavior
Attitude change
Psychological attitude
Children's rights
Youth rights
Parenting
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 29 November 2017, at 19:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: b

attr: href class title

value: /wiki/Affective mw-redirect Affective

value: button 0 togglelink

attr: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: Edit section: Dual models: depth of processing

value: Edit section: Heuristic-systematic model of information processing

value: Heuristics in judgment and decision making

value: Edit section: Elaboration likelihood model

value: Edit section: Cognitive dissonance theory

value:
/wiki/Fear_appeals
mw-redirect
Fear appeals

value:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10751980

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Attitude_change
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Attitude_change rootpage-Attitude_change skin-vector action-view


text:
NCAA Division II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main logo used by the NCAA in Division I, II, and III.
Division II is an intermediate-level division of competition in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It offers an alternative to both the larger and better-funded Division I and to the scholarship-free environment offered in Division III.
Before 1973, the NCAA's smaller schools were grouped together in the College Division. In 1973, the College Division split in two when the NCAA began using numeric designations for its competitions. The College Division members who wanted to offer athletic scholarships or compete against those who did became Division II, while those who chose not to offer athletic scholarships became Division III.
Nationally, ESPN televises the championship game in football, CBS televises the men's basketball championship, and ESPN2 televises the women's basketball championship. CBS Sports Network broadcasts six football games on Thursdays during the regular season, and one men's basketball game per week on Saturdays during that sport's regular season.
The official slogan of NCAA Division II, implemented in 2015, is "Make It Yours." [1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Membership
2 Overview
2.1 Men's team sports
2.2 Men's individual sports
2.3 Women's team sports
2.4 Women's individual sports
3 Requirements
3.1 Conferences competing in Division II
3.2 Independents
4 Scholarship limits by sport
5 Interaction with other divisions
5.1 NAIA
5.2 Division I
5.3 Non-revenue sports competition
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 References
9 External links
Membership[edit]
There are currently 300 full and 20 provisional members of Division II with seven institutions moving to full membership in September 2015.[2] Division II schools tend to be smaller public universities and many private institutions. A large minority of Division II institutions (133 schools / 42%) have fewer than 2,499 students. Only 12 institutions have more than 15,000 undergraduates, and only UC San Diego (which is set to move to Division I in 2020) has more than 25,000. Division II has a diverse membership, with two active member institutions in Alaska and four in Hawaii. Additionally, it is the only division that has member institutions in Puerto Rico and the only division that has expanded its membership to include an international member institution. Simon Fraser University became the first institution outside the US to enter the NCAA membership process. This occurred after the Division II Membership Committee accepted the institution's application during a July 7–9 meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. Simon Fraser, located in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, British Columbia, began a two-year candidacy period September 1, 2009. Prospective members also must complete at least one year of provisional status before being accepted as full-time Division II members. In the fall of 2012, the NCAA President's Council officially approved Simon Fraser University as the organization's first international member.[3] In April 2017, the NCAA made permanent the pilot program under which Simon Fraser was admitted to the NCAA,[4] allowing each division to determine whether to allow Canadian or Mexican schools to join.[5] In January 2018, Division II became the first NCAA division to officially allow Mexican schools to apply for membership, provided that they meet the same standards as US-based D-II members, including US regional accreditation.[5] The Mexican school CETYS, which is fully accredited in both countries, is seeking to join the NCAA with the backing of the California Collegiate Athletic Association.[4]
Overview[edit]
Men's team sports[edit]
Number
Sport
Teams[6]
Conferences
Scholarships
per team
Season
Most Championships
1
Football 173 16 7001360000000000000♠36.0 Fall Disputed
2
Basketball 320 24 7001100000000000000♠10.0 Winter Kentucky Wesleyan (8)
3
Baseball 270 24 7000900000000000000♠9.0 Spring Florida Southern (9)
4
Soccer 215 24 7000900000000000000♠9.0 Fall Southern Connecticut State University (6)
5
Lacrosse 65 24 7001108000000000000♠10.8 Spring Adelphi (7)
6
Volleyball* 24 4 7000450000000000000♠4.5 Spring UCLA (19)
7
Water polo* 7 4 7000450000000000000♠4.5 Fall California (13)
* Championships are combined with DI
Sports are ranked according to total possible scholarships (number of teams x number of scholarships per team). Scholarship numbers for head-count sports are indicated without a decimal point. Numbers for equivalency sports are indicated with a decimal point, with a trailing zero if needed.
Men's individual sports[edit]
No.
Sport
Teams[6]
Athletes[6]
Season
1
Track (outdoor) 210 7,189 Spring
2
Track (indoor) 166 5,826 Winter
3
Cross country 280 3,679 Fall
4
Swimming & diving 73 1,500 Winter
5
Golf 237 2,470 Spring
6
Tennis 174 1,749 Spring
7
Wrestling 60 1,946 Winter
Women's team sports[edit]
No.
Sport
Teams[6]
Conferences
Scholarships
per team
Season
Most Championships
1
Basketball 321 24 7001100000000000000♠10.0 Winter Cal Poly Pomona and North Dakota State (5)
2
Soccer 267 24 7000990000000000000♠9.9 Fall Grand Valley State and Franklin Pierce (5)
3
Volleyball 308 24 7000800000000000000♠8.0 Fall Concordia St. Paul (8)
4
Softball 299 24 7000720000000000000♠7.2 Spring Cal State Northridge (4)
5
Rowing 16 24 7001200000000000000♠20.0 Spring Western Washington (8)
6
Lacrosse 100 24 7000990000000000000♠9.9 Spring Adelphi (8)
7
Field Hockey 30 24 7000630000000000000♠6.3 Fall Bloomsburg (13)
8
Water Polo* 10 6 7000800000000000000♠8.0 Spring UCLA (7)
Championships are combined with D-I
Women's individual sports[edit]
No.
Sport
Teams[6]
Athletes[6]
Season
1
Track (outdoor) 236 7,104 Spring
2
Track (indoor) 189 5,921 Winter
3
Cross country 307 3,897 Fall
4
Swimming & diving 94 1,853 Winter
5
Golf 195 1,561 Spring
6
Tennis 232 2,067 Spring
7
Gymnastics 7 130 Winter
Requirements[edit]
Division II institutions have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women (or four for men and six for women), with two team sports for each sex, and each playing season represented by each sex. Teams that consist of both men and women are counted as men's teams for sports sponsorship purposes.[7] There are contest and participant minimums for each sport,[8] as well as scheduling criteria—football and men's and women's basketball teams must play at least 50 percent of their games against Division II or Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) or Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) opponents. For sports other than football and basketball there are no scheduling requirements, as long as each contest involves full varsity teams. The only NCAA sport in which contests against club teams can count toward a team's contest minimum is women's rugby, in which two such contests per school year can be counted.[9] There are not attendance requirements for football, nor arena size requirements for basketball. There are maximum financial aid awards for each sport, as well as a separate limit on financial aid awards in men's sports, that a Division II school must not exceed. Division II teams usually feature a number of local or in-state student-athletes. Many Division II student-athletes pay for school through a combination of scholarship money, grants, student loans and employment earnings. Division II athletics programs are financed in the institution's budget like other academic departments on campus. Traditional rivalries with regional institutions dominate schedules of many Division II athletics programs.[10]
Athletic scholarships are offered in most sponsored sports at most institutions, but with more stringent limits as to the numbers offered in any one sport than at the Division I level. For example, Division II schools may give financial aid in football equivalent to 36 full scholarships (whereas each school in Division I FBS, the highest level, is allowed 85 individuals receiving financial aid for football), although some Division II conferences limit the number of scholarships to a lower level. Division II scholarship programs are frequently the recipients of student-athletes transferring from Division I schools; a transfer student does not have to sit out a year before resuming sports participation as would usually be the case in the event of transferring from one Division I institution to another. Several exceptions to this rule currently exist, of which three are the most significant. First, football players transferring from a Division I FBS school to a Division I FCS school do not have to sit out a year, provided that the player has at least two remaining seasons of athletic eligibility. The same also applies to players transferring from scholarship-granting FCS schools to non-scholarship FCS schools.[11][a] Second, in sports other than football, baseball, men's and women's basketball, and men's ice hockey, a first-time transfer does not have to sit out a year, provided that the player's former institution grants a scholarship release.[11] Additionally, student-athletes in any sport who complete a bachelor's degree and still have athletic eligibility remaining can transfer to another school and be immediately eligible, provided that they enroll in a graduate or professional degree program at the new institution.[12]
Conferences competing in Division II[edit]
California Collegiate Athletic Association
Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference
Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association^
Conference Carolinas
East Coast Conference
Great American Conference^
Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference^
Great Lakes Valley Conference^
Great Midwest Athletic Conference
Great Northwest Athletic Conference^
Gulf South Conference^
Heartland Conference
Lone Star Conference^
Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association^
Mountain East Conference^
Northeast Ten Conference^
Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference^
Pacific West Conference
Peach Belt Conference
Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference^
Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference^
South Atlantic Conference^
Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference^
Sunshine State Conference
^ Conferences that sponsor football
The newest D-II conference is the Mountain East Conference, formed in 2012 after the football-sponsoring schools in the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (WVIAC) announced that they would leave to form a new league,[13][14] a move that led to the demise of the WVIAC. The Mountain East was approved by the NCAA Division II Membership Committee in February 2013, and became an official conference on September 1 of that year.[15]
Independents[edit]
Division II Independent schools
Scholarship limits by sport[edit]
The NCAA imposes limits on the total financial aid each Division II member may award in each sport that the school sponsors. All Division II sports are classified as "equivalency" sports, meaning that the NCAA restricts the total financial aid that a school can offer in a given sport to the equivalent of a set number of full scholarships.[16] This differs from Division I, in which some sports are "head-count" sports in which the NCAA limits the total number of individuals who can receive athletic aid. In another practice that differs from Division I, Division II members are limited to a combined total of 60 scholarship equivalents for men's sports apart from football and basketball.[17]
Scholarship limits in bold are identical to those for Division I members in the same sport for the same sex. Most, but not all, of these sports have a single championship open to schools from all divisions (for example bowling and rifle), or a combined Division I/II national championship and a separate Division III championship (as in women's ice hockey and men's volleyball). Examples of sports with identical scholarship numbers in the two divisions, but separate national championships for each, include men's cross-country and women's rowing.
In sports that conduct "National Collegiate" championships open to schools from multiple divisions, Division II schools are allowed to award the same number of scholarships as Division I members.[18] If the Division I scholarship limit is higher than the Division II limit, the D-II member must annually file a declaration of intent to compete under Division I rules with the NCAA prior to June 1.[19]
Additionally, if the NCAA sponsors a Division I championship but not a Division II championship in a given sport, D-II members are allowed to compete in the D-I championship,[20] and are also allowed to operate under D-I scholarship limits.[21] An example of this situation can be seen in men's ice hockey, which has not had a Division II championship in the 21st century. Several schools in the Northeast-10 Conference compete under Division II scholarship limits; other Division II schools with programs in that sport choose to play as Division I programs under the higher Division I scholarship limits.
Rifle is classified by the NCAA as a men's sport, but allows competitors of both sexes.
Sport
Men's
Women's
Baseball 9.0 -
Basketball 10.0 10.0
Beach volleyball - 5.0
Bowling - 5.0
Cross-country/track & field 12.6[s 1] 12.6[s 2]
Equestrian - 15.0
Fencing 4.5 4.5
Field hockey - 6.3
Football 36.0 -
Golf 3.6 5.4
Gymnastics 5.4 6.0
Ice hockey 13.5 18.0
Lacrosse 10.8 9.9
Rifle 3.6 -
Rowing - 20.0
Rugby - 12.0
Skiing 6.3 6.3
Soccer 9.0 9.9
Softball - 7.2
Swimming and diving 8.1 8.1
Tennis 4.5 6.0
Triathlon - 5.0
Volleyball 4.5 8.0
Water polo 4.5 8.0
Wrestling 9.0 -
Notes
Jump up ^ Schools that do not sponsor men's indoor or outdoor track, but do sponsor men's cross-country, are allowed 5.0 equivalents.[22]
Jump up ^ Schools that do not sponsor women's indoor or outdoor track, but do sponsor women's cross-country, are allowed 6.0 equivalents.[22]
Interaction with other divisions[edit]
The NCAA does not strictly prevent its member institutions from playing outside of their own division, or indeed playing against schools that are not members of the NCAA, but it is discouraged in many sports.
NAIA[edit]
Many Division II schools frequently schedule matches against members of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), which consists of colleges and universities across the United States and Canada that promote competitive and character-based athletics that is controlled by its membership, as opposed to the NCAA that serves as a regulating body.
Division I[edit]
Division II schools also frequently schedule "money games", usually in football and men's basketball, against Division I schools.
In football, D-II teams once occasionally played games against schools that are now in Division I FBS, but this practice has ended because under current NCAA rules, FBS schools cannot use victories over schools below FCS level for establishing bowl eligibility. Today, D-II "money games" are exclusively against FCS schools, whose postseason eligibility is less seriously impacted by scheduling a D-II opponent. In basketball, where conference tournaments play a large role in determining postseason participants, D-I schools have less of a penalty for scheduling an occasional D-II opponent, resulting in more "money games".
In any event, the D-II school is almost invariably the visiting team, and is invited to play with knowledge that it will likely be defeated but will receive a substantial (at least by Division II standards) monetary reward which will help to finance much of the rest of the season and perhaps other sports as well. Such games are funded by Division I schools which can afford such games.
In recent years, "money games" in men's basketball have also included preseason exhibitions against D-I programs, typically in the same region, that do not count in official statistics for either team. Under NCAA rules, Division I teams are allowed to play two exhibition games in a season, and must host these games.[23]
The University of Kansas helps the state's four Division II members by rotating them onto the Jayhawks' exhibition schedule annually. Milwaukee, which has been a Division I member since 1990, has continued its series with their former Division II rival Wisconsin-Parkside as part of their exhibition schedule.
When these exhibition games do happen, there are times when the Division II team does win, and against a well-respected Division I program. In 2009, a Division II team beat the eventual Big East regular season champion.[24] In 2010, two other Division II teams beat teams that reached the NCAA Division I tournament.[24] In 2011, another Division II team defeated a Division I team that finished in the top half of the Pac-12 Conference. In 2012, another Division II team beat[24] eventual Atlantic Coast Conference regular-season and tournament champion Miami.[25]
Also in basketball, one of the best-known early-season tournaments for D-I men's teams, the Maui Invitational, is hosted by D-II member Chaminade. Through the 2017 edition, Chaminade competed in every tournament, but in the future will compete only in odd-numbered years. The now-defunct Great Alaska Shootout, which had men's and women's tournaments, was also hosted by a D-II member, namely Alaska–Anchorage. Chaminade typically loses all games it plays in Maui; Alaska–Anchorage also typically lost all of its men's Shootout games, but was frequently competitive in the women's version.
Non-revenue sports competition[edit]
Matches between the different collegiate divisions in non-revenue sports are often quite competitive. Indeed, in some sports, among them ice hockey and men's volleyball, there is no Division II national championship. In hockey, many schools whose athletic programs are otherwise Division II compete in Division I, and men's volleyball has a truncated divisional structure with a Division III championship but no Division II championship (as opposed to the NAIA, which fully includes men's volleyball in its divisional structure). In any sport that does not have a Division II national championship, Division II members are allowed to award the same number of scholarships as Division I members.
See also[edit]
List of NCAA Division II institutions
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up ^ Most FCS members award football scholarships, but the following programs do not award football scholarships:
Members of the Ivy League, which prohibits its members from awarding athletic scholarships in any sport.
Members of the Pioneer Football League, a football-only league that also bans athletic scholarships (though only in that sport).
Georgetown, which chose to remain a non-scholarship football program after its football home of the Patriot League began allowing football scholarships in 2013.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ smeyers@ncaa.org (2015-07-08). "Division II begins rollout of 'Make It Yours' logo". NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA. Retrieved 2017-03-27.
Jump up ^ "Division II Facts and Figures | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA". NCAA.org. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
Jump up ^ August 21, 2012 6:03 PM (2012-08-10). "NCAA makes it official: SFU is admitted as first Canadian member - Public Affairs and Media Relations - Simon Fraser University". Sfu.ca. Retrieved 2013-08-17.
^ Jump up to: a b Tracy, Marc (May 1, 2017). "Looking to Cross the Border From Mexico, Into the N.C.A.A." The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Division II votes to permit membership applications from schools in Mexico" (Press release). NCAA. January 20, 2018. Retrieved February 2, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report, October 2016, http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR1516.pdf
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.10.3 Sports Sponsorship" (PDF). 2017–18 NCAA Division II Manual. p. 316. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.10.3.3 Minimum Contests and Participants Requirements for Sports Sponsorship" (PDF). 2017–18 NCAA Division II Manual. pp. 317–19. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.10.3.3.7.1 Exception—Women's Rugby" (PDF). 2017–18 NCAA Division II Manual. p. 318. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Divisional Differences and the History of Multidivision Classification | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA". NCAA.org. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
^ Jump up to: a b "Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10: Transfer Regulations, One-Time Transfer Exception" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division I Manual. NCAA. p. 170. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 14.6.1: Graduate Student/Postbaccalaureate Participation, One-Time Transfer Exception" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division I Manual. NCAA. p. 173. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ "UVa–Wise Accepts Charter Membership in Mountain East Conference". Hazard, KY: WYMT-TV. August 20, 2012. Archived from the original on August 21, 2012. Retrieved August 21, 2012.
Jump up ^ Rine, Shawn (August 20, 2012). "Cards, Toppers Set To Jump Into New League". The Intelligencer & Wheeling News Register. Wheeling, WV. Retrieved August 21, 2012.
Jump up ^ "NCAA Adds Mountain East Conference As Newest DIvision II League" (Press release). Mountain East Conference. February 15, 2013. Retrieved July 7, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 15.4.2 Equivalency Sports" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. pp. 165–66. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 15.4.2.1.1.1 Overall Limit" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 166. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.7.1.1 Maximum Awards Exception" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 298. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.7.1.1.1 Declaration of Intent to be Exempt" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 298. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.7.2 Options When No Division II Championship Is Conducted" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 298. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bylaw 20.7.2.1 Participation in Division I Championship" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 298. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "Bylaw 15.4.2.1.4 Maximum Equivalency Limits—Institutions That Sponsor Cross Country but Do Not Sponsor Track and Field" (PDF). 2016–17 NCAA Division II Manual. NCAA. p. 166. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
Jump up ^ Bolen, Erin (June 17, 2011). "Missouri State men's basketball to play Missouri Southern in exhibition". Springfield News-Leader. Springfield, Missouri. Retrieved October 30, 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Is Miami's exhibition loss to Division II St. Leo an aberration or an omen?". Yahoo Sports. 5 November 2012.
Jump up ^ "Miami (FL) Hurricanes Basketball 2013-14 Schedule - Hurricanes Home and Away - ESPN". Espn.go.com. Retrieved 2013-08-17.
External links[edit]
Official website
[show]
v
t
e
National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA
Awards
Hall of Champions
Conferences
Division I
Institutions
Athletic directors
Baseball
Championship
CWS
Basketball
Men
Women
Cross Country
Men
Women
Field hockey
Championship
Football
FBS
FCS
Golf
Men
Women
Ice hockey
Men
Women
Lacrosse
Men
Women
Rowing
Women
Soccer
Men
Women
Softball
Championship
WCWS
Swimming & Diving
Men
Women
Tennis
Men
Women
Track and Field
Men's indoor and outdoor
Women's indoor and outdoor
Volleyball
Men
Women
Wrestling
Championship
Division II
Institutions
Baseball
Championship
Basketball
Men
Women
Cross Country
Men
Women
Field hockey
Championship
Football
Championship
Golf
Men
Women
Gymnastics
Men
Women
Ice hockey
Men
Lacrosse
Men
Women
Rowing
Women
Soccer
Men
Women
Softball
Championship/WCWS
Swimming & Diving
Men
Women
Tennis
Men
Women
Track and Field
Men's indoor and outdoor
Women's indoor and outdoor
Volleyball
Women
Wrestling
Championship
Division III
Institutions
Baseball
Championship
Basketball
Men
Women
Cross Country
Men
Women
Field hockey
Championship
Football
Championship
Golf
Men
Women
Ice hockey
Men
Women
Lacrosse
Men
Women
Rowing
Women
Soccer
Men
Women
Softball
Championship/WCWS
Swimming & Diving
Men
Women
Tennis
Men
Women
Track and Field
Men's indoor and outdoor
Women's indoor and outdoor
Volleyball
Men
Women
Wrestling
Championship
Single-division sports
and championships
Beach volleyball
Women
Bowling
Women
Boxing
Championship
Fencing
Championships
Gymnastics
Men
Women
Rifle
Championship
Skiing
Championships
Trampoline
Championship
Water polo
Men
Women
Events listed in italics have been discontinued.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCAA_Division_II&oldid=832249969"
Categories:
NCAA Division II
Hidden categories:
Pages using div col without cols and colwidth parameters
Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Español
Français
Simple English
Edit links
This page was last edited on 24 March 2018, at 19:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

tag: div

attr: id class

value: mw-page-base noprint

key: html

type: local

value: mw-head-base noprint

tag: a

attr: id class lang

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: img

attr: href class

attr: class style

attr: href title

value: National Collegiate Athletic Association

tag: p

value: California Collegiate Athletic Association

value: List of NCAA Division II football programs

value: List of NCAA Division II men's basketball programs (page does not exist)

value: NCAA Division II Men's Basketball Tournament

value: List of NCAA Division II baseball programs (page does not exist)

value: List of NCAA Division II men's soccer programs

value: NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Championship

value: List of NCAA Division II lacrosse programs

value: NCAA Division II Men's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Men's National Collegiate Volleyball Championship

value:
wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter
text-align:center

value:
wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter
text-align: center;

value: NCAA Division II Women's Basketball Tournament

value: NCAA Division II Women's Soccer Championship

value: NCAA Division II Women's Volleyball Championship

value: NCAA Division II Women's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Division II Field Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision

value: Edit section: Conferences competing in Division II

value: Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association

value: Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

value:
/wiki/Northeast_Ten_Conference
mw-redirect
Northeast Ten Conference

value: Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

value: div-col columns column-count column-count-2

value: -moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;

value: Edit section: Scholarship limits by sport

value:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value: Edit section: Interaction with other divisions

value:
/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin-Parkside
mw-redirect
University of Wisconsin-Parkside

value: 2012–13 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season

value: 2012–13 Miami Hurricanes men's basketball team

value: Edit section: Non-revenue sports competition

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: lower-alpha;

value: The Intelligencer & Wheeling News Register

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.ncaa.org/d2

value:
collapseButton0
#
color: rgb(255, 255, 255);

value: Template:National Collegiate Athletic Association

value: Template talk:National Collegiate Athletic Association

value: color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration: inherit; -moz-text-decoration-color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration-color: #FFFFFF;

attr: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value:
navbox-image
5
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

value: List of NCAA Division I athletic directors

value: NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

value: NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament

value: NCAA Men's Division I Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Women's Division I Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Division I Field Hockey Championship

value: College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS

value: NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division I Women's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division I Women's Ice Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Division I Women's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship

value: NCAA Division I Women's Soccer Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division I Swimming and Diving Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division I Swimming and Diving Championships

value:
/wiki/College_tennis
mw-redirect
College tennis

value: NCAA Division I Men's Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Division I Women's Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division I Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Men's Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division I Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Division I Women's Volleyball Championship

value: List of NCAA Division II men's basketball champions

value: List of NCAA Division II women's basketball champions

value: NCAA Men's Division II Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Women's Division II Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Division II Men's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division II Women's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division II Men's Gymnastics Championships

value: NCAA Division II Women's Gymnastics Championships

value: NCAA Division II Men's Ice Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division II Swimming and Diving Championships

value: NCAA Division II Women's Swimming and Diving Championships

value: NCAA Men's Division II Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Women's Division II Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division II Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Men's Division II Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division II Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division II Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Division II Wrestling Championships

value: List of NCAA Division III men's basketball champions

value: List of NCAA Division III women's basketball champions

value: NCAA Men's Division III Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Women's Division III Cross Country Championship

value: NCAA Division III Field Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division III Men's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division III Women's Golf Championships

value: NCAA Division III Men's Ice Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey Championship

value: NCAA Division III Men's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Division III Women's Lacrosse Championship

value: NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Championship

value: NCAA Division III Women's Soccer Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division III Swimming and Diving Championships

value: NCAA Division III Women's Swimming and Diving Championships

value: NCAA Men's Division III Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Women's Division III Tennis Championship

value: NCAA Men's Division III Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Men's Division III Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division III Indoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Women's Division III Outdoor Track and Field Championships

value: NCAA Division III Men's Volleyball Championship

value: NCAA Division III Women's Volleyball Championship

value: NCAA Division III Wrestling Championships

value:
/wiki/Ten_pin_bowling
mw-redirect
Ten pin bowling

value:
/wiki/Shooting_sport#Rifle
mw-redirect
Shooting sport

value: List of college athletics championship game outcomes

value: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

value: Category:Pages using div col without cols and colwidth parameters

value: Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value:
/wiki/NCAA_Division_II
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-NCAA_Division_II rootpage-NCAA_Division_II skin-vector action-view


text:
Limited government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Part of a series on
Liberalism
Schools[show]
History of liberalism
Contributions to liberal theory
Ideas[show]
Civil and political rights
Cultural liberalism
Democracy
Liberal democracy
Economic liberalism
Egalitarianism
Free market
Free trade
Freedom of the press
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Gender equality
Harm principle
Internationalism
Laissez-faire
Liberty
Market economy
Natural and legal rights
Negative / positive liberty
Open society
Permissive society
Private property
Rule of law
Secularism
Separation of church and state
Social contract
Welfare state
Variants[show]
Anarcho-capitalism
Civic nationalism
Classical liberalism
Conservative liberalism
Democratic liberalism
Geolibertarianism
Green liberalism
Liberal feminism
Equity feminism
Liberal internationalism
Liberal socialism
Libertarianism
Muscular liberalism
Neoliberalism
Ordoliberalism
Radical centrism
Radicalism
Religious liberalism
Christian
Islamic
Jewish
Secular liberalism
Social liberalism
Technoliberalism
People[show]
Rifa'a al-Tahtawi
Juan Bautista Alberdi
Chu Anping
Matthew Arnold
Raymond Aron
Frédéric Bastiat
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Isaiah Berlin
Eduard Bernstein
William Beveridge
Norberto Bobbio
Ludwig Joseph Brentano
John Bright
Edmund Burke
Thomas Carlyle
Anders Chydenius
Richard Cobden
Marquis de Condorcet
Benjamin Constant
Benedetto Croce
Jean le Rond d'Alembert
Ralf Dahrendorf
John Dewey
Charles Dickens
Denis Diderot
Zhang Dongsun
Ronald Dworkin
Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Karl-Hermann Flach
Milton Friedman
John Kenneth Galbraith
William Lloyd Garrison
José Ortega y Gasset
David Lloyd George
William Gladstone
Friedrich Hayek
Auberon Herbert
Thomas Hobbes
Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse
John A. Hobson
Qin Hui
Wilhelm von Humboldt
Piero Gobetti
Francisco Luís Gomes
John Gray
Thomas Hill Green
Thomas Jefferson
Zef Jubani
Immanuel Kant
Namık Kemal
John Maynard Keynes
Will Kymlicka
John Locke
Salvador de Madariaga
James Madison
Harriet Martineau
Minoo Masani
James Mill
John Stuart Mill
John Milton
Ludwig von Mises
Donald Barkly Molteno
Leo Chiozza Money
Charles de Montesquieu
José María Luis Mora
Dadabhai Naoroji
Friedrich Naumann
Robert Nozick
Bertil Ohlin
Thomas Paine
Alan Paton
Karl Raimund Popper
Richard Price
Joseph Priestley
Guillermo Prieto
François Quesnay
Ignacio Ramírez
Ayn Rand
Walther Rathenau
John Rawls
Joseph Raz
David Ricardo
Wilhelm Röpke
Richard Rorty
Carlo Rosselli
Murray Rothbard
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Baptiste Say
Amartya Sen
Li Shenzhi
Hu Shih
Algernon Sidney
Emmanuel Sieyès
İbrahim Şinasi
Adam Smith
Hernando de Soto
Herbert Spencer
Baruch Spinoza
Anne Louise Germaine de Staël
William Graham Sumner
R. H. Tawney
Johan Rudolf Thorbecke
Henry David Thoreau
Alexis de Tocqueville
Antoine Destutt de Tracy
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot
Voltaire
Lester Frank Ward
Max Weber
Mary Wollstonecraft
Tao Xingzhi
Gu Zhun
Organizations[show]
Liberal parties
Africa Liberal Network (ALN)
Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe Party (ALDEP)
Arab Liberal Federation (ALF)
Council of Asian Liberals
and Democrats (CALD)
European Democratic Party (EDP)
European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)
European Party for Individual Liberty (EPIL)
International Alliance of
Libertarian Parties (IALP)
International Federation of
Liberal Youth (IFLRY)
Liberal International
Liberal Network for
Latin America (RELIAL)
Liberal South East
European Network (LIBSEEN)
Regional variants[show]
Europe
Latin America
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech lands
Denmark
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Iran
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Senegal
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
Related topics[show]
Democratic capitalism
Democratic education
Liberal bias in academia
Liberal conservatism
Liberal socialism
National liberalism
Regressive left
Liberalism portal
Politics portal
v
t
e
In political philosophy, limited government is where the government is empowered by law from a starting point of having no power, or where governmental power is restricted by law, usually in a written constitution. It is a key concept in the history of liberalism. The United States Constitution presents an example of the federal government not possessing any power except what is delegated to it by the Constitution - with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically stating that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved for the people and the states. The Magna Carta and the United States Constitution also represents important milestones in the limiting of governmental power. The earliest use of the term limited government dates back to King James VI and I in the late 16th century.[1] Limited government put into practice often involves the protection of individual liberty from government intrusion.[2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Limited government and the United States
1.1 Justification
1.2 The Bill of Rights
1.3 Republicanism
1.4 Checks and balances
2 See also
3 References
4 External links
Limited government and the United States[edit]
Justification[edit]
The reasons why the authors of the Constitution saw fit to limit the power of the government are set forth in the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. Here, Jefferson outlines three basic assumptions widely held in the American colonies that supporters of the Declaration believed were not held by the English monarchy. In other words, Colonists felt that the British had treated them unfairly. In order to prevent this from happening again the framers made limited government a principle in the constitution. These assumptions are that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and governments are instituted in order to preserve these rights. It was the fact that the English government was not adhering to these premises that the colonies saw fit to establish their own government in which all three would be respected.[3][4]
The Preamble to the Constitution serves to communicate the goals sought to be accomplished by specifically enumerating the powers of the United States government—the promotion of “the general Welfare” is one of these goals. The Preamble does not grant any power to the government, rather it serves to explain the limits of the delegated powers listed later in the Constitution. This is to say, in the case of the general welfare clause, that the government is not allowed to exercise its powers on a whim, rather they must be exercised for the general welfare of the country.
The Bill of Rights[edit]
With the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came a new era of government in which the powers and restrictions of government were both explicitly outlined. The Bill of Rights added to the American Constitution, along with other constitutional amendments, limits the power of government in two ways. First, it restricts the range of governmental authority by prohibiting the government from intruding in certain areas, like religious worship or freedom of speech, and grants the government authority over specifically enumerated aspects of life, like regulating the economy and collecting taxes. Second, it sets certain procedures the government must follow when dealing with the people. Examples of this include the protection from unreasonable search and seizure of property and protection from cruel and unusual punishment for crimes for which one is convicted. The explicit outline of what the government is permitted to do and barred from doing combined with the power of common people to seek repairs for breaches of their constitutional rights is what protects the rights of the people.[5]
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are examples of how the government acknowledges it doesn't have complete dominion over every facet of the people's lives, and that the federal government is not the only entity with governmental power in the United States. The Ninth Amendment reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people.”[6] This shows the federal government doesn’t have the ability to infringe upon the rights of the people in any circumstance, even if the rights aren’t explicitly protected by the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[7] This limits the authority of the United States government to those powers listed in the Constitution and concedes the premise that individual States retain the powers not granted to the national government but that are also not barred to the States by the Constitution. Also, it grants that the people themselves retain power under this system of government as well. These are key points of the concept of limited government established by the Constitution in the United States because they overtly state the power of the federal government is not unlimited.
Republicanism[edit]
Where the government oversteps its authority, the people have the right, as listed in the Constitution, to make their grievances known through petition and through public elections for government office. It is the implementation of republicanism that allows citizens to perpetuate the idea that the government must not only adhere to the Constitution, it must also listen to the will of the people. If the public becomes disenchanted with the actions of those in power and the rules that have been created, they have the ability to put new people in power who will better represent the public interest. Since, under the Constitution, the government is ultimately held accountable by the people, the public always has the opportunity to keep the government’s power in check.
Checks and balances[edit]
The Constitution also partially prevents the government from expanding its own power by creating a system of checks and balances through the separation of powers. Articles One, Two, and Three of the Constitution create three separate branches of government, equal in level power, but different in responsibility, that all control the government. In assuming each branch would want to expand its powers, it was necessary that each have the ability to fend off power grabs from other branches. The three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial— compete with each other through certain powers that allow them to “check” the others and “balance” the government. Examples of this include the legislative branch’s power to override Presidential Vetoes and the judicial branch’s power to declare laws created by the legislative branch unconstitutional. James Madison writes in Federalist No. 51 “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.”[8] Without the capacity of each branch to check the others, power would concentrate with a small minority and could potentially allow the minority to infringe upon the rights of the people. This would be antithetical to the purpose of the Constitution, hence a system of checks and balances was set in place.
See also[edit]
Social contract
Natural and legal rights
Constitutionalism
Enumerated powers
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "limited government". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
Jump up ^ Cima, Lawrence R.; Cotter, Patrick S. (1985). "The Coherence of the Concept of Limited Government". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 4 (2): 266. doi:10.2307/3324630. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Barth, Alan. "The Roots of Limited Government". The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Jump up ^ Jay, John; Madison, James; Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers.
Jump up ^ Barth, Alan. "The Roots of Limited Government". The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Jump up ^ United States Government Printing Office. "Unenumerated Rights – Ninth Amendment" (PDF). gpo.gov.
Jump up ^ United States Government Printing Office. "Tenth Amendment – Reserved Powers – Contents" (PDF). GPO.gov.
Jump up ^ Madison, James. Federalist No. 51. p. 268.
External links[edit]
Barth, Alan, 1991, The Roots of Limited Government
Unknown, Limited Government
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_government&oldid=836885802"
Categories:
Classical liberalism
Political ideologies
Libertarian theory
Minarchism
Paleoconservatism
Paleolibertarianism
Hidden categories:
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Articles with limited geographic scope from June 2016
USA-centric
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Dansk
Español
فارسی
日本語
Simple English
தமிழ்
Türkçe
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 17 April 2018, at 12:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: td

value: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

attr: class href

tag: span

tag: i

tag: small

tag: tr

tag: tbody

tag: table

attr: class role

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-globalize

value: font-size:105%;background:transparent;text-align:left;border: 1px solid #FFBF00;text-align:center;color:black;

value: font-size: 105%; padding: 0px 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

value: Liberalism and progressivism within Islam

value:
/wiki/Ludwig_Joseph_Brentano
mw-redirect
Ludwig Joseph Brentano

value:
/wiki/William_Gladstone
mw-redirect
William Gladstone

value:
/wiki/Leonard_Trelawny_Hobhouse
mw-redirect
Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse

value:
/wiki/Charles_de_Montesquieu
mw-redirect
Charles de Montesquieu

value:
/wiki/Karl_Raimund_Popper
mw-redirect
Karl Raimund Popper

value:
/wiki/Emmanuel_Siey%C3%A8s
mw-redirect
Emmanuel Sieyès

value:
/wiki/Johan_Rudolf_Thorbecke
mw-redirect
Johan Rudolf Thorbecke

value: International Alliance of Libertarian Parties

value: International Federation of Liberal Youth

value: Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Bulgaria
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Bulgaria

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Chile
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Chile

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Denmark
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Denmark

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Ecuador
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Ecuador

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Estonia
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Estonia

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Finland
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Finland

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_France
mw-redirect
Liberalism in France

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Hungary
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Hungary

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Iceland
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Iceland

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Italy
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Italy

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Macedonia
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Macedonia

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_New_Zealand
mw-redirect
Liberalism in New Zealand

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Paraguay
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Paraguay

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_Philippines
mw-redirect
Liberalism in the Philippines

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Romania
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Romania

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Spain
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Spain

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Sweden
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Sweden

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Switzerland
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Switzerland

value:
/wiki/Liberalism_in_Venezuela
mw-redirect
Liberalism in Venezuela

value: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;

value: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

value:
/wiki/Federal_government
mw-redirect
Federal government

value:
/wiki/King_James_VI_and_I
mw-redirect
King James VI and I

value: Edit section: Limited government and the United States

value:
/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence
mw-redirect
Declaration of Independence

value:
/wiki/Unalienable_rights
mw-redirect
Unalienable rights

value: Preamble to the United States Constitution

value: Ninth amendment to the united states constitution

value: Tenth amendment to the united states constitution

value:
/wiki/Checks_and_balances
mw-redirect
Checks and balances

value: Article One of the United States Constitution

value: Article Two of the United States Constitution

value: Article Three of the United States Constitution

value:
/wiki/Enumerated_powers
mw-redirect
Enumerated powers

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3324630

value: United States Government Printing Office

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

value: Category:Articles with limited geographic scope from June 2016

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Limited_government
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value: دولت محدود – Persian

value: வரம்புக்குட்பட்ட அரசு – Tamil

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Limited_government rootpage-Limited_government skin-vector action-view