An Empirical Exploration of Neutralization Theory

Abstract

Sociological theories of crime and delinquency, emphasizing the etiological importance of social factors, have been characterized by one major deficiency: these theories do not satisfactorily explain why one individual does and another does not succumb to various pressures toward delinquency. This problem suggests that more adequate formulations must somehow take cognizance of personal factors. The persistent failure of sociological theories to deal with a "readiness" or "self" factor was explicitly recognized years ago. At thit time, Reckless called for a reformulation of theories to take account of "differential response" to similar social pressures. ' A recent formulation which appears to incorporate the recognition of a self factor in delinquent behavior is the "neutralization theory" advanced by Sykes and Ma-.* According to their statement, norms are not to be conceived as categorical imperatives but rather as qualified guidelines for a zone of acceptable behavior. The particular norms embodied in law have undergone considerable specification, and these specifications include completely or partially extenuating circumstances as, for example, in the principle of mens reu. Thus, the legal code itself supplies potential rationalizations for violation.Sykes and Matza maintain that much delinquency is based upon such ju~tifications.~ They contend that, while excuses are usually considered to be rationalizations following violation, they might also be viewed as neutralizations which ochr prior to deviant behavior. That is, the actor learns certain excuses or justifications for violation and is therefore able to violate the very norms to which he is at least partially committed. The following major "techniques of neutralization" were spcified: ( 1) th denial of responsibility, (2) the denial of .injury, (3) the denial of the victim, ( 4 ) the condemnation of the condemners, and (5) the appeal to higher loyalties.The research reported here was designed as a preliminary exploration of the neutralization theory, and it must be emphasized that the study provides no complete test. The theory asserts that ( a ) delinquents accept the techniques of neutralization and (b) this acceptance facilitates violation by neutralizing the norms. The present study explores the first assertion. Assessment of the second will require a longitudinal design beyond the limitations of this study. The essential hypothesis was that delinquent boys would accept more justifications for violation of law than would nondelinquent boys. Since there is apparently no single conception of delinquency which satisfies all students of the problem, 22

Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis

“…Overall, a relatively small effect size of neutralizations as a predictor of deviance has been found (Ball 1966;Ball and Lilly 1971;Hirschi 1969;Hollinger 1991;Thurman 1984). This might stem from a variety of reasons.…”

Why People Don’t Take their Concerns about Fair Trade to the Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation

“…For example, given that gender has already been found to influence the employment of neutralising beliefs (e.g. Ball, 1966;Ward and Beck, 1990;Bersoff, 2001), this would mean that the effects of neutralisation in the ethical decision-making process would be stronger for women rather than men. Identification of additional factors -particularly psychological onescould provide valuable information about the origin of neutralising beliefs as well as possibly suggest ways for future interventions.…”

“…Examples of its application include a variety of juvenile (e.g. Ball, 1966;Minor, 1981;Costello, 2000) as well as adult deviance contexts (e.g. Levi, 1981;Eliason and Dodder, 1999;Fox, 1999).…”

Predicting Deviant Behavior by Neutralization: Myths and Findings

“…During the past 45 years of research and practice in dealing with norm violating behavior, neutralization theory has been assigned considerable importance for the explanation and prevention of deviant behavior in the fields of general delinquency and crime (e.g., Agnew and Peters 1986;Amelang, Schahn, and Kohlmann 1988;Atkinson 1999;Ball 1966;Egg and Sponsel 1978;Hindelang 1970;Khoo and Oakes 2000;Landsheer, T'Hart, and Kox 1994;Minor 1980;Norris and Dodder 1979;Rogers and Buffalo 1974;Schwarz and Bayer 1989;Shields and Whitehall 1994;Strutton, Vitell, and Pelton 1994;Teevan and Dryburgh 2000;Thurman 1984;Winkel 1997), violence and 1 When not otherwise indicated, the gender specifying expressions refer to both sexes.…”