When Mental Illness Is Mistaken for Intentional Misconduct Among Underrepresented Groups: Barring Leniency for Naivetè
Author(s)
Reed, Natasha D.
Advisor(s)
Editor(s)
Collections
Supplementary to:
Permanent Link
Abstract
The growing presence of mental illness within the workplace, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic, has become a pressing concern. These concerns become more complex when mental illness intersects with other marginalized identities, such as belonging to an underrepresented racial group. Drawing on attribution theory, I examine when and why the same exhibited behavior induced by mental illness might lead to varying workplace outcomes. Across three experimental studies, I test whether leaders perceive employee misconduct differently depending on whether a mental illness is disclosed, ambiguous, or absent, and whether these perceptions shape disciplinary leniency. While most hypothesized effects were not supported, one consistent exploratory pattern emerged: employees with a diagnosed mental illness were perceived as less intentional in their misconduct than those with no mental illness. Ambiguous mental illness did not consistently increase perceived intent, and race did not significantly moderate these effects. Findings contribute to research on managerial attribution, workplace mental illness, and the dynamics of concealable identities in organizational contexts.
Sponsor
Date
2025-07-30
Extent
Resource Type
Text
Resource Subtype
Dissertation