“Stuck in the Middle with You?” Supervisory Level and Anger about Work

Although sociologists have long been interested in the stratification of emotions, the occupational stratification of anger has been investigated in only a few general population studies. Through analyses of data representative of workers in Toronto, we evaluate the hypothesis that workplace hierarchical position, defined by supervisory level, has an inverted u‐shaped association with the frequency of anger about work. We also evaluate the more specific hypothesis that the difference in work‐related anger between front‐line supervisors and nonsupervisory workers will be relatively larger among workers in the commodified services sector than other sectors. Results are generally consistent with our hypotheses. We find that both front‐line supervisors in the commodified services sector, and secondary supervisors in all employment sectors, report more frequent anger about work than do nonsupervisory workers. In contrast, higher level supervisors report anger about work at about the same frequency as nonsupervisory workers. These associations are only slightly reduced by controls for work stress and stressors. We discuss how supervisory relations might explain differences in anger about work among workers at different levels in organizational hierarchies.     

Models of the Joint Structure of Domain-Related and Global Distress: Implications for the Reconciliation of Quality of Life and Mental Health Perspectives

Research on subjective wellbeing includes studies of both domain-related and global distress. The mental health literature, though, focuses almost exclusively on global distress. This seems to be partly due to a common belief that psychological distress, and the moods that comprise distress, necessarily lack referential content. However, if that were the case it would make little sense for any study to ever focus on domain-related distress. The research presented in this report clarifies the relation between global and domain-related distress. We compare confirmatory factor analytic models of the joint relationship among symptoms of global distress with affective symptoms of distress about work, home, and physical appearance. Data are from a general population telephone survey. In the best-fitting models domain-related distress and global psychological distress are related but distinct latent variables. We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of the models, and model choice.     

The Human Habitat: a Systemization and Critique of Park’s Theory from a Radical Interactionist Perspective

When Park died, he left his theory of the human habitat not only incomplete, but in considerable disarray. Although few present-day scholars have demonstrated much interest in building on this critical body of Park’s work, which he based on dominance, it probably represents his most important contribution to American sociology. I argue that the key to systemizing his highly discursive account of the human habitat is to view it from an emergent social evolutionary perspective, which makes it possible to differentiate his notion of “community” from “society,” as well as explain how the two concepts can logically be viewed as both separate and unified entities. A community is not only a necessary stage in the social evolutionary process of producing a society, but it also provides the habitat needed for a society’s later emergence. Among other things, Park’s theory of the human habitat is also criticized for its failure to (1) distinguish dominance from domination, (2) identify the reciprocal relationship existing between power and domination, (3) accurately characterize the nature of the economic order operating in communities, and (4) demarcate a pre-lingual, lingual and literate communal stages that precedes in the social evolutionary process the possible development of a society. In passing, I also point out critical, but often overlooked aspects of Park’s theory of the human habitat that contradict popular characterizations of his work as being purblind to the operation of dominance and power, social Darwinist, conservative, sexist, and racist. Finally, I deduce the implications of his theory for the future emergence of a “world society.”     

Mead’s Analysis of Social Conflict: A Radical Interactionist’s Critique

Because Mead entered the pantheon of classic sociological thinkers much later than Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, sociologists have unsurprisingly devoted much more critical attention to their ideas than his. Perhaps, nowhere is the lack of this attention on their part more glaring than in his explanation of social conflict. Mead views the emergence and resolution of conflict as taking place within the social act, in which either individuals or groups may be the acting units, and attitudes, roles, significant symbols, and attitudinal assumption operate as the common, key components. As far as the emergence of conflict is concerned, he accounts for it on the basis of insufficient differentiation of roles, non-meritorious allocation of roles, and adoption of self-centered attitudes on the part of the participants during their construction of a social act. As far as the resolution of conflict is concerned, he predictably explains it on the basis of their expansion of role differentiation, distribution of roles on basis of merit, and the adoption of other-centered attitudes. Despite that Mead’s explanation of the resolution and emergence of conflict is relatively consistent and offers many profound insights, it suffers from several irresolvable problems. All these various problems can be traced back to his decision to rest his explanation on his much cherished principle of “sociality,” rather than domination, and thereby, ultimately, his rejection of a radical interactionist’s perspective. Thus, it is now long overdue for sociologists to consider the merits of a new, more radical interactionism as a replacement for his much older and more conventional counterpart, symbolic interactionism.     

Overcoming the Neglect of Social Process in Cross‐National and Comparative Criminology

How and why crime rates vary across different societal and cultural contexts has been a perennial question within criminological research. Numerous studies have emerged in recent years responding to calls for criminology to examine the cross‐cultural relevance of contemporary theory. While many of these studies have made significant advances, a great deal of work remains to be done in the development of theory, measurement, and methods. The present article examines the state of cross‐national criminological research, including a discussion of challenges in examining key theoretical questions. Promising avenues for overcoming issues with data and developing key theoretical perspectives to better assess how social processes explain cross‐national variations of crime are discussed.     

Deconstructing the pipeline: using efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-benefit data to reduce minority youth incarceration

Investing in effective prevention and early intervention programs will reduce human costs of victimization and also save tax dollars in the short and long terms.     

Asymptotic risk comparisions of restricted and unrestricted maximum likelihood estimators

Conditions for choosing between restricted and unrestrieted maximum likelihood estimators based on various asymptotic risk oriteria are derived. These conditions involve the non-centrality parameters of classical and specification test statistics, and are generlizations of well known results for the linear regression model.