Techniques of Neutralization - A Reconceptualization and Empirical Examination

• NCJ Number: 78947
• Journal: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Dated: (July 1981) Pages: 295-318
• Author(s): W W Minor
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 24 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta (GA), April 6, 1979, and the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Boston (MA), August 27, 1979.

Annotation

This paper presents a reformulation and empirical test of neutralization theory, according to which juvenile delinquents are able to excuse or justify their delinquent behavior in view of particular circumstances and thus remove the inhibitions of conventional morality.

Abstract

Neutralization theory is thus seen as a theoretical counterpoint to subcultural perspectives on delinquency. The neutralization approach suffers, however, from both operational problems and such theoretical problems as the implication that the willingness to neutralize is the only important difference in the value structures of delinquents and nondelinquents. A revision of neutralization theory is therefore proposed that makes the theory compatible with subcultural interpretations of delinquency. This revision suggests that neutralization should be more applicable to youths who are fundamentally conformist than to those who are frequently deviant, more applicable to emerging or sporadic delinquency than to persistent delinquency, and more applicable to minor offenses than to serious offenses. To test part of this reformulation, a two-wave panel survey was conducted of excuse acceptance and self-reported involvement in minor forms of deviance by 478 students. Among the behaviors studied were marijuana use, fighting, being drunk and disorderly, and nonmarital sex. For the most part, the data supported the neutralization theory, but some unanticipated findings suggested the need for further research to clarify or modify certain aspects of the theory. For example, the finding that excuse acceptance was more strongly related to subsequent behavior for those who have previously engaged in that behavior than for those who have not contradicted the expectation that neutralization theory would apply primarily to those without prior deviance. Nevertheless, the research provided a conservative test of the theory and generally supported it. Footnotes, tables and 54 references are provided.