In the context of workplace deviance, unlike political deviance, personal aggression:

Description

Workplace deviance, also referred to as employee deviance, counterproductive work behaviors [CWB], or antisocial work behaviors, affects nearly all organizations [Case, 2000; Coffin, 2003], with prior research proposing that the majority of employees [between 50% and 75%] have engaged in some type of deviant behavior [Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Harper, 1990; Harris and Ogbonna, 2002; Slora, 1991]. The associated costs of workplace deviance have been estimated to be rather significant, with annual estimations being in millions for US organizations [Aquino et al., 1999; Case, 2000; Harris and Ogbonna, 2006; Murphy, 1993]. Workplace deviance is defined as ‘voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both’ [Robinson and Bennett, 1995, p.556].

The typology of workplace deviance produced by Robinson and Bennett [1995] used multidimensional scaling techniques to identify two separate dimensions: interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance. Interpersonal deviance refers to deviant act directed towards individuals within the organization, such as managers, coworkers, and subordinates; whereas, organizational deviance refers to deviant acts directed towards the organization itself [Bennett and Robinson, 2000]. Furthermore, the original typology configured workplace deviance to consist of four different forms: two of interpersonal deviance [political deviance and personal aggression] and two of organizational deviance [production deviance and property deviance], with the distinct types differentiated on one dimension by their seriousness or harmfulness and on a second dimension by whether they were directed to either individuals or organizations [Robinson and Bennett, 1995]. Political deviance and production deviance refer to minor deviant acts; whereas, personal aggression and property deviance refer to serious deviant acts [Robinson and Bennett, 1995]. For an overview of the typology and examples of the different types of workplace deviance, see Figure 1.

Deviance Proneness

In deviance proneness models, problem drinking is considered part of a general pattern of deviant behavior that develops in childhood and is partially attributable to deficient socialization. One theoretical explanation for deviance proneness is Jessor's problem–behavior theory, in which the environment, personality, and behavior work in conjunction to either increase or decrease risk for problem behaviors, and where the presence of one problem behavior increases the likelihood of others, thus causing various problem behaviors to cluster together among at-risk individuals. Deviance proneness models are supported by evidence that AUDs are predicted by a number of early childhood risk factors and other problem behaviors [e.g., impulsivity, aggression, defiance, achievement problems, poor interpersonal relations, and inadequate parenting], and by evidence that a broad ‘externalizing spectrum’ subsumes AUD and other related disorders [e.g., drug disorders and antisociality] due to common etiological risk factors shared across these conditions.

Deviance and Value

Historically, the deviance of metaphor has been tied to the question of the value of metaphor. Although Cicero [De Oratore], Quintilian [Institutio Oratoria], and rhetoricians celebrated the deviance of metaphor and its embellishment of language, philosophers John Locke [Essay concerning human understanding] and Thomas Hobbes [Leviathan] condemned the use of metaphor in philosophical inquiry. If the best chance at arriving at and communicating truth is afforded only by unambiguous literal language use, metaphor's deviance from the literal is therefore suspect. Jean-Jacques Rousseau [Essay on the origin of languages] and Friedrich Nietzsche [On truth and falsity in their ultramoral sense] attempted to undercut this criticism by arguing that all language is fundamentally metaphorical and championed metaphor's creative function. For a short history of philosophical thought about metaphor, see Johnson [1981] and Kittay [1987].

Control Theory

This theory posits that deviance arises when young people lack sufficient ties to conventional social groups such as families, schools, and churches [Hirschi, 1969]. From this point of view, youth deviate not through frustrated desires or actions in accordance with their own reference groups, but because their ties to conventional groups are broken or underdeveloped. While it has become common in the delinquency literature to test both control and differential association theories simultaneously [Conger, 1973; Johnson, 1979; Matsueda, 1982], the limited research on substance use shows little association between the two [Dull, 1984].

Abstract

Forensic psychopathology is the realm in which criminal deviance merges with mental pathology. The field extends to more than a simple duplication of psychopathologies within a criminal setting; it is an evolution of psychopathology that adapts the field to make provisions for the requirements of the criminal justice system and its definitions of legality in various circumstances. More than major pathological syndromes, forensic psychopathology concerns itself with the pathological expression of individual psychological mechanisms, such as thoughts, emotions, and motivations, which may ultimately drive someone to engage in criminal behavior. With a view to providing relevant information to the pursuit of applied crime analysis, this chapter discusses the role of genetics, epigenetics, and environmental influences on the manifestation of these criminally-oriented psychological characteristics. It explores these mechanisms and their associated psychopathologies focusing on the syndromes, symptoms, and behavioral consequences that are primarily associated with person-to-person crimes.

Conclusion

Sexual offending can occur in the presence or absence of sexual deviance. Sexual deviance itself can occur with no link to sexual offending, and is not usually considered to be a mental disorder unless harmful to the individual or others. Mental disorder or illness can be associated with sexual offending both with and without sexual deviance. It is therefore important to have an approach to the understanding of and definitions of sexual offending which is clear about the roles of deviance and mental illness, particularly as sexual behavior and offending can be the subject of ‘moral panics’ in society.

Sexual deviance itself is difficult to clearly define, as sexual behavior is complex and deviance is defined by the society in which it occurs, wherein values about sexual behavior, and what constitutes unacceptable or even offending behavior, are constantly changing.

Within this changing moral and cultural landscape it is difficult to draw clear ahistoric definitions about sexual deviance, but psychiatric classification has become more cautious than it has been in the past about drawing distinctions between normality and abnormality, and especially disorder and illness. The recent systemic descriptions of and research into sexual behavior and what constitutes abnormality may be helpful in leading toward a greater understanding of sexual deviance and an unjudgmental and evidence-based approach to treatment, which is more humane and effective.

EVOLUTION OF DIAGNOSTIC CONCEPTS

Autism and the related disorders are conditions characterized by deviance and delay in the development of social and communication skills associated with unusual, restricted patterns of behavior and interests. Autism is the best-known disorder in this group. In addition, several other conditions are currently recognized, including Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder [CDD], Asperger syndrome, and “subthreshold” autism [pervasive developmental disorder–not otherwise specified [PDD-NOS]]. This chapter reviews these conditions with a focus primarily on autism, and discusses aspects of screening and treatment.

2.6.2 Tests between nested models

More generally, the anova function allows us to compare any two nested models by performing a deviance test. Suppose that we wish to test the non-significance of the health variable for the model in equation [2.17]:

H0:β2=β3=0againstH1:β2≠0orβ3≠0.

The code:

fit_poisH0 = update[fit_pois,formula =.~.-health2-health2]

anova[fit_poisH0,fit_pois,test ="Chisq"]

estimates the model under H0 and then computes the deviance statistic [under H0, this statistic asymptotically follows a χ22 distribution]. The anova function returns the output:

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model 1: ofp ~ numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med

Model 2: ofp ~ health2 + health2 + numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med

---

Signif.codes: 0’***’ 0.001’**’ 0.01’*’ 0.05 ’.’ 0.1 ’’ 1

Alternatively, we could use the lrtest function from the lmtest package [ZEI 02], which performs a likelihood-ratio test [which is equivalent to the deviance test]. The syntax of this command is as follows:

lrtest[fit_poisH0,fit_pois]

We of course obtain the same result as before, although the results are presented slightly differently:

Likelihood ratio test

Model 1: ofp ~ numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med

Model 2: ofp ~ health2 + health2 + numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med

---

Signif.codes: 0 ’***’ 0.001’**’ 0.01 ’*’ 0.05 ’.’ 0.1 ’’1

Finally, we can use a Wald test to compare nested models [the waldtest function from the lmtest package]. The following R code:

waldtest[fit_poisH0,formula =.~.+health2 + health2,test ="Chisq"]

returns the output:

Wald test

Model 1: ofp ~ numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med

Model 2: ofp ~ numchron + age + gender + fstatus + school + income + med + health2 + health2

---

Signif.codes: 0’***’ 0.001’**’ 0.01’*’ 0.05’.’ 0.1 ’’ 1

4.5 Optimality Criteria

Once branch lengths have been estimated for a number of topologies, it is possible to rate these trees according to an optimality criterion. An optimal tree according the chosen criterion is considered as a valid phylogenetic hypothesis given the distance data. The most often used criteria for this purpose are the following.