Identity Implications of Influence Goals A Revised Analysis of Face-Threatening Acts and Application to Seeking Compliance With Same-Sex Friends

Although politeness theory offers one explanation for how threats to face arise during compliance-gaining episodes, it neither predicts the conditions under which seeking compliance will create multiple face threats nor explains how such threats arise within specific contexts. The authors challenge and revise politeness theory by analyzing potential implications for both parties' face when the logical preconditions for seeking compliance are framed by specific influence goals. In a test of a revised analysis of face threats, young adults imagined asking favors, giving advice, and enforcing obligations with same-sex friends. Perceived face threats, interaction goals, and message qualities varied substantially across compliance-gaining situations defined by these goals. Directions for exploring the identity implications of influence goals across relationships and cultures are discussed.     

Can Levinson's Intentional‐Historical Definition of Art Accommodate Revolutionary Art?

In this article, I examine whether Jerrold Levinson's intentional‐historical definition of art can successfully accommodate revolutionary art. For Levinson, an item is art if it was intended to be regarded as some prior art was regarded. But revolutionary art involves a regard that is “completely distinct” from preexisting art regards. I consider and reject Levinson's proposed solutions to the problem of accommodating revolutionary art. I then defend an alternative account of transgressive art regard. Unfortunately for the intentional‐historical definition, the acceptance of transgressive art regard in conjunction with some recent theories of the development of human behavioral modernity may commit the definition to including nonart, prehistoric tools.     

Combined Effects of Masculine Gender‐Role Stress and Sexual Prejudice on Anger and Aggression Toward Gay Men

This study was designed to examine the extent to which masculine gender‐role stress, sexual prejudice, and antigay anger collectively facilitate antigay aggression. Participants were 135 heterosexual men who completed a structured interview assessing masculine gender‐role stress, sexual prejudice, anger in response to a vignette depicting a non‐erotic male–male intimate relationship (i.e., partners holding hands, kissing), and past perpetration of antigay aggression. The results indicate that the association between masculine gender‐role stress and antigay aggression is partially mediated by antigay anger among sexually prejudiced men. These findings contribute to theoretical understanding of antigay aggression. Implications for future research and intervention are discussed.