types of neutralization and types of delinquency
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, VoL 12, No. 4, 1983
Types of Neutralization and Types of Delinquency
J i m M i t c h e l P a n d R i c h a r d A . D o d d e r 2
Received March 16, 1981
Neutralization theory was tested with questionnaires administered to a random sample o f pubtic school students (N = 298) and institutionalized male delinquents (N = 53). Nye-Short delinquency items were factor analyzed to yield three dimensions o f delinquency (Predatory, Minor, and Aggressive), and each o f the five techniques o f neutralization was scored separately. Patterns o f acceptance o f neutralization techniques were similar among high school males, high school females, and institutionalized males. For example, all three subsamples scored highest on Detail o f a Victim and lowest on Appeal to Higher Loyalties. Correlations between each technique o f neutralization and each type o f delinquency, however, were statistically significant and quite dissimilar. Within the three subsamples, however, there were no discernible patterns among these dissimilar correlations. In fact, few o f the differences among these correlations were statistically significant. The analysis provides general support for neutralization theory, but indicates that the particular technique o f neutralization as well as the particular type o f delinquent act may be viable distinctions in delinquency research.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Al though neutral izat ion theory was first fo rmula ted over two decades ago, research has just begun to focus on this or ientat ion. In neutral izat ion
t Assistant Professor of Sociology, East Carolina University. Received his Ph.D. in sociology, with specializations in social problems, social gerontology, and quantitative sociology, from Oklahoma State University in 1980.
2Associate Professor of Sociology and Statistics, Okahoma State University. Received his Ph.D. in sociology, with specializations in social problems and quantitative sociology, from the University of Kansas in 1969.
307
0047-2891/83/0800-0307S03.00/0 ~ 1983 Plenum Pnblishina Corporation
308 Mitchell and Dodder
theory, according to Sykes and Matza (1957), guilt resulting from committing delinquent acts is reduced through a form of a pr ior i rationalization. This "neutralization" allows the self-image of the person committing delinquent acts to remain intact. Techniques of neutralization suggested by Sykes and Matza are the denial of injury, the denial of a victim, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, and the denial of responsibility. In each case, an ulterior motive is offered by the youth as an explanation for behavior in advance of the act.
Akers (1977) posits that neutralization is a learned response pattern acquired in association with, primarily, a conventional culture and, secondly, a deviant subculture. The secondary position of the deviant subculture leads to the classification of this approach in a category other than a differential association framework. This view is supported by Mitchell and Dodder (1980), who found neutralization to be highly related to self-reported delinquency while controlling for the effects of delinquent peer association. This suggests that neutralization may be an important explanatory variable for those who associate, as well as those who do not associate, with delinquent peers. As suggested by Akers, delinquent peer influence cannot be discounted, but to view it as a primary explanatory variable appears to be overly simplified.
There is some evidence that neutralization is a more viable concept for certain types of delinquency. Previous research findings (Mitchell and Dodder, 1980) indicate that as the seriousness of delinquent acts increases (specifically, from minor, predatory, to aggressive delinquency) the tendency to neutralize decreases. This finding raises the question whether "neutralization" as a general tendency of youth may be more applicable to specific techniques of neutralization as they relate to certain types of delinquent acts. This question is the primary focus of this article. In addition, these relationships will be examined among subsamples of males, females, and institutionalized males.
Various researchers (cf. Hindelang, 1971; Jensen and Eve, 1976; Williams and Gold, 1972; Norris and Dodder, 1979) suggest that the acts of female delinquents are similar to those of delinquent males, although females generally report fewer acts. Work by Mitchell et al. (in press) illustrates little difference between males' and females' tendency to neutralize delinquent acts. Mannle (1972) expected the intensity of socialization to be strongly correlated with the tendency to neutralize delinquent acts. He introduced sex and race as control variables and found that race was the main predictor of the tendency to neutralize delinquent behavior. The question of possible differences between males and females by the particular technique of neutralization and type of delinquency remains an issue to be addressed by this research.
Neutralization and Delinquency 309
If delinquent peer association is an important antecedent condition of the tendency to neutralize delinquent acts, a substantial relationship is expected between these variables among the subsample of institutionalized male youth. The institutional milieu provides ample opportunity for interaction.
SAMPLE AND M E T H O D O L O G Y
The sample in this research consists of 298 high school students f rom an Oklahoma community o f approximately 45,000 people and 53 male youth from two area juvenile correctional facilities. The responses f rom the high school students were obtained through a mail-out procedure. The same questionnaire was administered to the institutionalized youth. Returned mailed questionnaires represented 59.6070 of an initial random sample o f 500 students. The final sample, then, consisted of 351 students. Of the total, 169 (48.1070) were females and 182 (51.9070) were males. The racial composition of the sample was 83.2070 White and 10.6070 Black. The typical respondent (71.5°70) lived with both parents (28.8070 lived with only the mother), was generally middle class, and had not changed residence in the last three years. The students were evenly distributed across the three grades of high school. The majority of those sampled (76.4°70) reported they had no prior contact with the police. Across 12 categories of delinquent behavior, the average reporting they had never committed an act was 62.1°?0. The delinquent acts committed most frequently were disobeying parents, driving without a license, and getting drunk (35.3% reported getting drunk at least five times). A small number of respondents had committed more serious acts. Among these acts were car theft (12.6070) and forging a check at least once (5.20?0)
Delinquent acts were measured by a modified version of the Nye-Short (1958) delinquency scale. The scale was changed to conform to local laws. Responses to the 12 items were factor analyzed using a principal components method with unity in the diagonal f rom the Statistical Analysis System. 3 Three factors, with eigenvalues greater than I, were generated and then rotated orthogonally (Varimax). The factor accounting for the most
~According to Miller (1977), the three steps in factor analysis are (1) the preparation of a correlation matrix (a table of all the variables correlated with each other); (2) extracting the initial factors (the determination of which items or variables correlate highly with each other); and (3) the rotation (in this case, 90-degree rotation of the axes passing through each cluster represented by each factor) to a terminal solution (uncovering latent dimensions leading to patterns in responses).
310 Mitchell and Dodder
variance 05.10/0) loaded heavily on five items--driving without a license, truancy, disobeying parents, getting drunk, and taking things worth less than $2. This factor was labeled Minor Delinquency. The second factor, explaining 34.8% of the variance, had substantial loadings on seriously damaging property, taking things worth more than $20, and check forgery. This factor was called Predatory Delinquency. The last factor, Aggressive Delinquency, explained 30% of the variance and loaded strongly on assault, strong-arm methods, and car theft. One item, running away from home, loaded weakly across all three factors and was, consequently, excluded from further analysis. ~ Subjects were scored on each factor by averaging their responses to the items which loaded strongly on the respective factors.
Subjects' tendency to neutralize was measured using a revised version of Bali's (1966) inventory. The items comprising the revised scale are shown in Table I. Four situations depicting hypothetical deviant acts are presented and subjects are asked if they agree with 10 different ways of neutralizing each situation. Consequently, the reader should be aware that "neutralization," as used in this study, refers to an attitudinal construct or predisposition to act. Mannle (1972) reduced these 40 statements, with a reliability coefficient of 0.98, to 20 statements by selecting the 4 statements which best reflect each of the five techniques of neutralization. Following the work of Mannle, subjects were scored on each technique of neutralization by averaging their responses to the 4 items indexing each technique. This procedure resulted in average scores for each of the five techniques of neutralization.
Data were analyzed by dividing the sample into three groups: high school males (N = 129), high school females (N = 169), and institutionalized males (N = 53). Means for each group were calculated to indicate the extent of agreement on each technique of neutralization. Since 5-point response continua were used for all items, the highest possible mean is 5, indicating that subjects strongly agreed with all 4 statements indexing a neutralization technique for a particular situation. The lowest possible mean is 1, indicating that subjects strongly disagreed with each of the 4 statements. The frequencies of the delinquent acts within each subtype (Aggressive, Predatory, or Minor) were averaged to allow comparability among subtypes. Correlation analysis was subsequently used to indicate the relationship between each neutralization technique and each type of delinquency. A positive correlation indicates that a greater tendency to favor neutralization is accompanied, on the average, by more self-reported delinquency.
4According to Kerlinger (1973), when to retain or reject items with lower factor ioadings is left to the discretion of the analyst. His recommendation, used in this research, is a loading strength of 0.30 to 0.40 to retain an item.
Table 1. Items Comprising the Neutralization Index
Technique and response set a Hypothetical situation and statements
Deny Responsibility Jack gets a club and goes with his friends to look for
SA A U D SD
S A A U D S D
SA A U D SD
SA A U D SD
Deny a Victim S A A U D S D
S A A U D S D
SA A U D SD
SA A U D SD
Deny Injury
S A A U D S D
S A A U D S D
SA A U D SD
SA A U D SD
Condemn the Condemners SAAUDSD
SAAUDSD
SAAUDSD
SA A U D SD
another group of boys. They find them in a park, and a fight starts. During the fight Jack hits another boy with the club, and almost kills him.
People should not blame Jack this time if he was trying to protect himself. People should not blame Jack this time if he just "went crazy" with anger for a second. People should not blame Jack this time if he had been drinking. People should not blame Jack this time if he was swing- ing the club just to scare the boy.
(same situation) People should not blame Jack this time if all the boys were using clubs. People should not blame Jack this time if the other boy had been trying to hit him. People should not blame Jack this time if the boy was an outsider who came to cause trouble. People should not blame Jack if the other boy jumped him,
While loafing around in a store, Jack ta!~es some things without paying for them.
People should not b.lame Jack if this was the normal thing to do where Jack lived. People should not blame Jack if the store has more of the things than it can ever sell. People should not blame Jack if the owner is rich and won't miss it. People should not blame Jack if the things were old and could not be sold anyway.
(same situation) People should not blame Jack if everybody knows the owner sells things that are against the law. People should not blame Jack if the owner himself had stolen a lot of money and left town. People should not blame Jack if everyone knows that the owner is very crooked. People should not blame Jack if the owner cheats poor people out of everything.
Appeal to Higher Loyalties
S A A U D S D
SA A U D SD
S A A U S S D
S A A U D S D
Jack stops a man on a dark street one night when nobody else is around. He pulis a knife and makes the man hand over his money.
People should not blame Jack if he had to prove to his friends he could do it. People should not blame Jack if all the boys had promised to try it. People should not blame Jack if someone said he was too afraid to try it. People should not blame Jack if he did it to prove his courage to everybody.
a K e y : S A = 5 , A =4 , U = 3 , D = 2 , SD-- 1.
312 Mitchell and Dodder
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
Table II presents both the mean values illustrating the degree of agreement with each technique of neutralization and correlation values between each technique of neutralization and each type of delinquent act. It is apparent that the respondents do not uniformly agree with each technique of neutralization. The subjects agree most with the statements describing Denial of a Victim (~-= 1.74). This variability among the means leads one to question the efficacy of using "neutralization" as a total concept. Each technique of neutralization seems to have extremely unique qualities evidenced by the variability among means.
Another question addressed by this research is the association between a particular neutralization and delinquent acts. The correlation values under "Total Delinquency" in Table II illustrate that Denial of Injury (r = 0.24) was most highly correlated with delinquency, as a total score, and Denial of Responsibility was the least related to Total Delinquency (r = 0.16). This finding was somewhat unexpected, given the pattern of agreement with the various techniques of neutralization. If neutralization is a method of reducing guilt--lending an aura of legitimation to an illegitimate a c t - t h e authors expected that Total Delinquency would be most highly correlated with Denial of a Victim. This is not to deny that delinquents may use a battery of neutralization techniques, but the means in Table II indicate that this neutralization technique is the one subjects tend to agree with the most.
Past research has noted relationships between the severity of delinquent acts and neutralization (Mitchell and Dodder, 1980). While controlling the effects of delinquent peer association, Minor Delinquency was found to be more substantially related to neutralization, followed by Predatory and, finally, Aggressive Delinquency. This pattern changes in the present research, however, with the effects of delinquent peer association left uncontrolled, or free to influence the relationship between neutralization and delinquency. Following the presentation in Table II, Predatory Delinquency has the highest correlation with Total Neutralization (r = 0.23), followed closely by Aggressive and Minor Delinquency (r = 0.21 and 0.18, respectively). The magnitude of differences among these correlations warrants only tentative conclusions. However, previous findings incorporating the influence of delinquent peers in a regression format (Mitchell and Dodder, 1980) have indicated that neutralization is a more salient predictor of Minor Delinquency followed by Predatory and Ag- gressive Delinquency. Although the differences between the standardized reg-
Tab
le I
I. M
eans
and
Cor
rela
tion
s A
mon
g th
e T
echn
ique
s of
Neu
tral
izat
ion
and
Typ
es o
f D
elin
quen
cy
O
lJ I
Cor
rela
tion
s
Tec
hniq
ue o
f P
reda
tory
M
inor
A
ggre
ssiv
e T
otal
ne
utra
liza
tion
M
eans
de
linq
uenc
y de
linq
uenc
y de
linq
uenc
y de
linq
uenc
y
Den
ial o
f R
espo
nsib
ilit
y 2.
27
0.13
a 0.
16
0.18
0.
16
Den
ial o
f a
Vic
tim
2.
85
0.23
0.
19
0.21
0.
21
Den
ial o
f ln
j ury
2.
10
0.27
0.
21
0.25
0.
24
Con
dem
nati
on o
f C
onde
mne
rs
2.58
0.
25
0.20
0.
14
0.20
A
ppea
l to
Hig
her
Loy
alti
es
1.74
0.
29
0.15
0.
26
0.23
T
o ta
l neu
tral
iza t
io n
2.31
0.
23
0.18
0.
21
0.21
aWit
hN
= 3
51
,r =
0.1
6 w
hen
p ~
0.0
5.
314 Mitchell and Dodder
ression coefficients in the previous research and the correlation values in the present research are small, they suggest that including the influence of delinquent peers in the analysis of the relationship between neutralization and delinquency may result in different patterns of agreement contingent upon the kind of delinquent act being considered. The authors suggest that this difference, although small, warrants further detailed study-incorporating the logic of differential association theory (Sutherland and Cressy, 1974)-focusing upon the social nature of delinquency and rationalizations for delinquent acts as learned behavior.
When the correlations describing the relationships between each type of deliquency and technique of neutralization are examined, variability is again evident. Using logic similar to a difference between means test, 5 virtually all of the correlations in Table II were found to be significantly different from each other. A consistent pattern among the correlations for each type of delinquency is absent. Both Appeal to Higher Loyalties and Denial of Injury are associated with Predatory and Aggressive Delinquency to a greater extent than the remaining neutralization techniques. With Minor Delinquency, the patterns change. These findings suggest that neither delinquency nor neutralization can be identified as general phenomena in themselves without referring to the particular type of delinquent act as well as to the particular technique of neutralization.
Means representing agreement with neutralization and correlations between type of delinquency and technique of neutralization are presented separately for males, females, and institutionalized males in Table III. The number of institutionalized male respondents is small, so that the reader should use caution in comparing these correlations with those of the remaining two subsamples. Any discussion of statistically significant differences with this particular group should, again, be qualified by an awareness of the small subsample size.
An interesting finding in Table III is that the order of accepting the techniques (see the first column) of neutralization remains the same as that in Table II for each subsample. In each instance, Denial of Victim is the most accepted neutralization technique, followed by Condemnation of Condemners, Denial of Responsibility, Denial of Injury, and Appeal to Higher Loyalties. This suggests a definite pattern or hierarchical arrangement of the techniques of neutralization as an attitudinal dimension
SFor a discussion of the mechanics involved in this procedure, see Blalock (1972, p. 407).
Tab
le 1
I!.
Mea
ns a
nd C
orre
lati
ons
Am
ong
the
Tec
hniq
ues
of
Neu
tral
izat
ion
and
Typ
es o
f D
elin
quen
cy A
mon
g T
hree
Sam
ples
7
Cor
rela
tion
s T
echn
ique
of
neut
rali
zati
on
Pre
dato
ry
Min
or
by s
ampl
e M
eans
de
linq
uenc
y de
linq
uenc
y A
ggre
sfiv
e de
linq
uenc
y T
otal
s
w
m
tn.
Hig
h sc
hool
mal
esb
Den
ial
of
Res
pons
ibil
ity
2.19
0.
18
0.3J
. a
0.20
0.
23
Den
ial
of
a V
icti
m
2.70
0.
23
0.22
a 0.
31 a
0.
25
Den
ial
of
Inju
ry
1.96
0.
30
0.16
a
0.26
a
0.24
C
on
dem
nat
ion
of
Co
nd
emn
ers
2.46
0.
17
0.13
a 0.
13a
0.14
A
ppea
l to
Hig
her
Loy
alti
es
1.74
0.
31
0.27
0.
25
0.27
Hig
h sc
hool
fem
ales
c D
enia
l o
f R
espo
nsib
ilit
y 1.
89
0.09
a 0.
15
0.33
a 0.
19
Den
ial
of
a V
icti
m
2.49
0.
15 a
0.18
0.
28
0.20
D
enia
l o
f In
jury
1.
64
0.28
a 0.
28
0.33
a 0.
30
Co
nd
emn
atio
n o
f C
on
dem
ner
s 2.
11
0.22
0.
24
0.14
a 0.
20
App
eal
to H
ighe
r L
oyal
ties
1,
39
0.15
0.
14
0.29
0.
19
Inst
itut
iona
lize
d m
ales
d D
enia
l o
f R
espo
nsib
ilit
y 2.
73
0.12
0.
01
0.01
0.
05
Den
ial
of
a V
icti
m
3.36
0.
32
0.18
0.
03
0.18
D
enia
l o
f In
jury
2.
69
0.23
0.
19
0.17
0.
20
Co
nd
emn
atio
n o
f C
onde
mne
rs
3.16
0.
35
0.23
0.
14
0.24
A
ppea
l to
Hig
her
Loy
alti
es
2.09
0.
11
0.03
0.
23
0.12
Tot
al a
vera
ge
0.21
0.
18
0.21
0.
20
a S
tati
stic
ally
sig
nifi
cant
dif
fere
nce
(p ~
0.0
5).
bWit
h N
= 1
29
,r =
0.1
7 w
hen
p ~
0.0
5,
cWit
h N
= 1
69,
r =
0.1
5 w
hen
p ~
0.05
. dW
ith
N =
53,
r =
0.2
7 w
hen
p ~
0.05
.
316 Mitchell and Dodder
among high school males, high school females, and institutionalized males in this sample.
There is widespread variation in the pattern of the correlations under each type of delinquency of high school males. For example, the neutralization technique with the highest correlation with Predatory Delinquency is Appeal to Higher Loyalties, followed closely by Denial of Injury (r = 0.31 and 0.30, respectively). The correlations, however, are different under Minor and Aggressive Delinquency. The neutralization technique most closely associated with minor Delinquency is Denial of Responsibility (r = 0.31). With Aggressive Delinquency, which is most likely to be directed against another person, ~there seems to be a relationship with Denial of a Victim (r = 0.31), followed closely by Denial of Injury (r = .26). These correlations are varied to such an extent that no discernible pattern could be identified. In addition, very few of the differences among the correlations are statistically significant; in fact, the number of differences was about what would be expected by chance at the 5% level. As in the case in Table II, the pattern of agreement among the techniques of neutralization (Table III, column 1) does not correspond with the order of the magnitude of correlations with committing delinquent acts. This remains the case across the three subsamples.
Among high school females, although the patterns of accepting the techniques of neutralization remain the same, there is, again, no discernible pattern among the correlations by types of delinquency. The significant differences presented are little more than what would be expected by chance. The order of the magnitude of the correlations is certainly different than those for the subsample of high school males, but the absence of a pattern of differences defies efforts to arrive at meaningful comparisons with the male subsample.
The correlations illustrated for institutionalized males also vary considerably. Only t w o of the correlations-between Predatory Delinquency and both Denial of Victim (0.32) and Condemnation of the Condemners (0.35)- are statistically significant, but none of the differences among the correlations are significant. The pattern of the correlations is very different than for either high school males or females, although the small sample size warrants only tentative conclusions. Similar to the male and female high school subsamples, there are differences among the institutionalized males' correlations; but, again, the absence of statistical significance as well as any pattern defies any systematic conclusion other than chance variation to explain the disparate correlations.
In sum, both Tables II and III illustrate that there is no consistent pattern in the relationships by types of delinquency and techniques of
Neutralization and Delinquency 317
neutralization. In addition, there is considerable variation in these relationships among the subsamples. Finally, there is widespread variation between the consistent pattern of agreement with each technique of neutralization across subsamples and patterns of correlations with self- reported delinquency. This suggests that there is little relationship between what youth say their attitudes are and how these attitudes are manifested in behavior.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A mail-out and self-administered procedure was used to obtain responses from 298 high school students and 53 institutionalized male youth concerning delinquent acts and attitudes toward neutralizing delinquency. The typical respondent was White, lived with both parents, and would be categorized as middle class. Factor analysis of the Nye-Short delinquency items resulted in three subtypes of delinquent acts. These factors were labeled Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive Delinquency. The types of self- reported delinquent acts were subsequently correlated with each technique of neutralization (i.e., Denial of Responsibility, Denial of Victim, Denial of Injury, Condemnation of Condemners, and Appeal to Higher Loyalties) arrived at by categorizing responses to the hypothetical delinquency situations. The correlations were compared across the three subsamples. The results can be summarized as follows:
1. Each technique of neutralization was accompained by varying degrees of agreement as to its efficacy as a solution to the hypothetical situation illustrating a deviant act. This suggests that attitudes toward neutralization vary according to the particular type of neutralization. Con- sequently, referring to neutralization as a total attitudinal set or general predisposition to act, regardless of the technique used, is a questionable practice.
2. There is a consistent pattern of agreement among the five neutrali- zation techniques across the three subsamples. In each case, Denial of a Victim was the most accepted, followed by Condemnation of Condemners, Denial of Responsibility, Denial of Injury, and, finally, Appeal to Higher Loyalties.
3. Comparison of the pattern of agreement among the five neutrali- zation techniques with self-reported deliquent acts revealed a lack of consistency between what youth said they agreed with versus what they report actually doing.
4. Previous research (Mitchell and Dodder, 1980) found neutralization to be related to Minor Delinquency, somewhat less to Predatory Delin-
318 Mitchell and Dodder
quency, and least strongly to Aggressive Delinquency. These relationships were arrived at while controlling the effects of delinquent peer association. When delinquent peer association is not controlled, the significance o f type of delinquency in the relationship to neutralization is greatly r e d u c e d - underlining the importance o f a consideration of the influence of delinquent peer association.
5. Some techniques of neutralization were more closely associated with certain types of delinquency. There was, however, clearly an absence of discernible trends in differences among correlations, indicating a need to consider techniques of neutralization as well as types of delinquent acts separately.
In sum, each technique of neutralization and each type of delinquency appear, from this research, to have unique qualities worthy of further exploration. Perhaps the time has arrived for researchers in delinquency and neutralization theory to consider more seriously the aspects of differing delinquent acts prior to making generalizations about "delinquency." This would call for a situational, rather than a general, orientation. Neutralization theory is a viable theoretical approach to the study of delin- quency causation which will undoubtedly foster further" research and exploration of its implications.
REFERENCES
Akers, R. I. (1977). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Bali, R. (1966). An empirical exploration or neutralization theory. Criminologia 4: 22-32. Blalock, H. M. (1972). Social Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York. Hindelang, M. J. (1971). Age, sex and the versatility of delinquency involvements. Soc.
Problems 18(Spring): 527-535. Jensen, G. F., and Eve, R. (1976). Sex differences in delinquency. An examination of popular
sociological explanations. Criminology 13(February): 427-448. Kerlinger, F. (1973). Foundations o f BehavioralResearch, Holt, New York. Mannle, H. (1972). An empirical exploration and interpretation of neutralization theory
predicted upon sexual differences in the socialization process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Miller, D. (1977). Handbook o f Research Design and Social Measurement, Longman, New York.
Mitchell, J., and Dodder, R. A. (1980). An examination of types of delinquency through path analysis. J. Youth andAdoles. 9 (3) 239-248.
Mitchell, J., Dodder, R~ A., and Norris, T. (in press). Neutralization and delinquency: a comparison by sex of Mexican-American and Anglo youth. Adolescence.
Norris, T., and Dodder, R. A. (1979). A behavioral continuum synthesizing neutralization theory, situational ethics, and juvenile delinquency, Adolescence 14(Fall): 545-555.
Nye, F. I., and Short, J. F. (1958). Scaling delinquent behavior. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22: 326-331. Sutherland, E. H., and Cressy, D. R. (1974). Criminology, Lippincott, Philadelphia. Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
Am. J. Sociol, 22: 664-670. Williams, J. R.0 and Gold, M. (1972). From delinquent behavior to official delinquency.
Soc. Problems 20(Fall): 209-229.