Neutralization Theory

Abstract

Gresham Sykes and David Matza argue that, when offenders contemplate committing criminal acts, they use linguistic devices to neutralize the guilt of committing crime. The most common neutralization techniques that offenders use include denial of responsibility, denial of harm, denial of victim, appeal to higher loyalties, and condemnation of the condemners. Despite mixed empirical support, the neutralization theory has gained widespread acceptance within criminology. The theory has been incorporated into many mainstream criminological approaches (e.g., differential association, social control, and reintegrative shaming). Recent theoretical advancements have focused on elaborating upon how neutralization use varies according to the types of offenders who use them and the type of offense committed.

Death Holds No Fear: Overdose Risk Perceptions Among People Who Inject Drugs

“…Neutralization theory describes neutralizations as forms of techniques that may verbally resolve differences between action and expectation, specifically when responding to questions about behavior that is inconsistent with normative expectations (Copes & Deitzer, 2015; Maruna & Copes, 2005; Peretti-Watel & Moatti, 2006; Sykes & Matza, 1957). Neutralizations may thus be understood as dynamic cognitive processes, specifically important where there are conflicts between one’s self-concept as a responsible person and behavior that may be considered as morally questionable by the general public, such as injecting drug use (Aronson, 1968; Lloyd, 2013; Luoma et al, 2007; Maruna & Copes, 2005; Trang et al, 2022).…”

Techniques of Neutralization: A Brain Network Perspective

“…For nearly 60 years, neutralization theory first introduced in the seminal article Techniques of Neutralization (Sykes & Matza, 1957) has been integrated into various sociological and criminological theories (Copes & Deitzer, 2016;Maruna & Copes, 2005). These include, control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990;Williams & McShane, 2004), rational choice theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1987), life course theory (Sampson & Laub, 2005), and reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite, 1989).…”

“…There has also been a plethora of research examining the core principals of neutralization theory and the application of techniques of neutralization, with mixed results (see Maruna & Copes, 2005, for a critical appraisal). Despite the lack of strong empirical support for neutralization theory, it has endured and been incorporated into criminal and sociological theory (Copes & Deitzer, 2016;Maruna & Copes, 2005).…”