SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Bias in the evaluation of workplace misbehavior is hotly debated in courts and corporations, but it has received little empirical attention. Classic sociological literature suggests that deviance by lower-status actors will be evaluated more harshly than deviance by higher-status actors. However, more recent psychological literature suggests that discrimination in the evaluation of misbehavior may be moderated by the relative status of the evaluator because status influences both rule observance and attitudes toward social hierarchy. In Study 1, the psychological experience of higher status decreased rule observance and increased preferences for social hierarchy, as we theorized. In three subsequent experiments, we tested the hypothesis that higher-status evaluators would be more discriminating in their evaluations of workplace misbehavior, evaluating fellow higher-status deviants more leniently than lower-status deviants. Results supported the hypothesized interactive effect of evaluator status and target status on the evaluation of workplace deviance, when both achieved status characteristics (Studies 2a and 2b) and ascribed status characteristics (i.e., race and gender in Study 3) were manipulated.
This research is an example of quasi-experimental research using an on-line survey with random assignment. The researchers focus on workplace deviance and how higher status groups are more lenient when addressing deviance and are more likely to protect those who also are considered high status.
Questions to Consider:
- How do the authors of this article define deviance?
- What makes this research quasi-experimental?
Article 2: Scarduzio, J.A. (2011). Maintaining Order Through Deviance? The Emotional Deviance, Power, and Professional Work of Municipal Court Judges Management Communication Quarterly May 2011 vol. 25 no. 2 283-310.
This study examines the intersection of power, professional work, organizing, and emotional deviance at two municipal courthouses in the United States. A variety of qualitative methods including observation, shadowing employees, informal interviewing, and semi-structured respondent interviews were used to collect the data. A total of twelve municipal court judges were observed during arraignments, pre-trial conferences, and trials, and four of these judges participated in member checking interviews for a total of sixteen in-depth, audio-recorded interviews.This article centers on emotional deviance, or the expression of emotion that occurs when employees disregard feeling rules and express emotions that do not align with organizational expectations. In the case of judges who are mandated to be rational and neutral, emotional deviance becomes a distinctive advantage. Furthermore, the findings of this piece suggest that professional work is actually quite emotional and it also introduces the concept of privileged deviance to describe the ways in which deviance is related to power and specific verbal and nonverbal communicative behaviors. The article ends by discussing implicit and explicit privileged deviance and offers practical implications related to the training of municipal court judges and the mandates to process cases quickly while still fostering a high level of defendant satisfaction.
Judges possess power and privilege. In this article the researcher, using various qualitative measures examines the emotional deviance of municipal judges.
Questions to Consider:
- Define emotional deviance.
- What makes this research qualitative rather than quantitative?
- This article focuses on municipal judges. What are the other professions identified in this article that have the freedom to deviate from “feeling rules”?
This article reviews the scholarly research that has been conducted on the problem of correctional officer (CO) deviance. It then outlines the most dominant kinds of CO deviance and the solutions that have been proposed and, in part, implemented. In so doing, the author provides a typology of the categories of deviance and the variety of controls. The researcher concludes with several recommendations on how these findings might be utilized to further the research on this subject.
The researcher reviews the existing literature focused on correction officer (CO) deviance. The author notes that terms such as “misconduct” and “corruption” are more frequently used to describe the deviant behavior of correction officers.
Questions to Consider:
- What is a typology?
- What is a “whistleblower”?
- What factors does the author identify that make responding to CO deviance difficult?