GENDER AND INFLUENCE STRATEGIES OF FIRST CHOICE AND LAST RESORT

The present study attempted to resolve an apparent contradiction in the literature regarding gender differences in use of various influence behaviors by examining both between-gender differences, as reflected in differences in absolute rates of using various influence strategies, and between-strategy differences, as reflected in relative rates of strategy use within each gender. Two samples of subjects reported how frequently they used a number of influence strategies as strategies of first choice and last resort. A third sample of subjects rank-ordered the strategies from most used to least used. Results across all samples revealed significant correlations between women's and men's ordering of strategies from most used to least used, with verbal request and rational strategies reported as used most often, and high pressure strategies, including threats, as used least often. Within this invariant hierarchy, gender differences in frequency of use of various strategies were observed. The discussion suggests that none of the current theories of gender differences in influence behavior can predict explicitly both between-gender and between-strategy differences.     

Biculturalism amongst ethnic minorities: Its impact for individuals and intergroup relations

This review article offers an integration of acculturation, biculturalism, and intergroup relations research. Additionally, it argues that bicultural identities can be more accurately conceptualised as a third, hyphenated cultural identity (e.g., Chinese‐Australian), in addition to one's ethnic and the dominant national identity. In doing so, this article proposes that hyphenated cultural identities may be personally meaningful for many ethnic minorities and discusses the function of hyphenated cultural identification for individuals and society. Given the relevance of bicultural identification, it is argued that recognising and understanding a hyphenated cultural identity is fundamental to ethnic minorities' wellbeing, as well as improving the quality of intergroup relations in multicultural societies, such as Australia.     

Hope as Grounds for Forgiveness

It is widely assumed that Christianity enjoins its followers to practice universal, unconditional forgiveness. But universal, unconditional forgiveness is regarded by many as morally problematic. Some Christian scholars have denied that Christianity in fact requires universal, unconditional forgiveness, but I believe they are mistaken. In this essay, I show two things: (1) that Christianity does enjoin universal, unconditional forgiveness of a certain sort, and (2) that Christians, and perhaps other theists, are always justified in exercising unconditional forgiveness. Though most philosophers treat forgiveness as grounded in our beliefs about the offender's current state, I argue that we might more fruitfully ground forgiveness in hope for the wrongdoer. Christianity's commitment to the existence of an omnipotent God who is concerned about the moral status of His creatures always justifies such hope and thus always justifies forgiveness.