American compassionate responses (i.e., sending sympathy cards) focus more on the positive (e.g., comforting memories) and less on the negative (e.g., the pain of someone's death) than German compassionate responses, partly because of cultural differences in how much people want to avoid feeling negative (i.e., avoided negative affect [ANA]). However, are these culture-specific compassionate responses considered more comforting and compassionate within their respective cultural context? We predicted that Americans would find responses that focus on the negative less and those that focus on the positive more comforting and compassionate than Germans will and that ANA would mediate these differences. In Study 1, 152 Americans and 315 Germans reported their ANA and rated how comforting they considered receiving different sympathy cards. As predicted, Americans found sympathy cards that contained negative content less and cards that contained positive content more comforting than Germans did. In Studies 2a and 2b, to examine whether these culture-specific conceptualizations of a comforting response would generalize to how people conceptualize a compassionate face, 118 Americans and 80 Germans selected stimuli that most resembled a compassionate (or happy) face using a reverse correlation task. As predicted, people's mental representation of a compassionate face contained more happiness/less sadness in an American than German context. Across studies, ANA partially mediated the cultural differences. This research demonstrates that responses that are intended to be compassionate might not be considered equally compassionate and comforting across cultures, which has implications for relief efforts, which are often organized internationally.

In this article I argue that freedom of expression is an important right even within the employment context. I contend that there should be a presumption in favour of free expression even if the expression is offensive, particularly if it involves a matter of public debate. However, the interests of colleagues and employers should be taken into account and may be decisive. Where expression takes place outside work, employees should only be subject to disciplinary action if there is a clear link between their employment and the expression. I consider the law relating to these issues in the contexts of harassment, unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

No abstract

This article considers when an interference with Article 9 should be found. It argues that while some limits are necessary, it is sufficient that there is 'intimate connection' between a religiously motivated act and a belief, and there should be no requirement of religious obligation or impossibility. It demonstrates that the historic approach of the ECtHR has been to overly limit the circumstances in which an interference with rights can be claimed, particularly in employment. It argues that the approach developed in Eweida v United Kingdom demonstrates a deeper understanding of the importance of Article 9, giving it broader effect, but that this is likely to mean that the Court will be faced with hard decisions as to when religious claims can be protected.

In theory, there is no hierarchy of rights in the Equality