Advertisement

Convenient Deviant Behavior

  • Petter GottschalkEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Neutralization explains why many white-collar offenders think it is quite okay what they will do, what they are doing, and what they have done. They deny responsibility, damage, and victim. They condemn their critics, and they claim loyalty to overriding considerations. White-collar offenders reduce and eliminate their feeling of guilt by claiming that everyone else does it, that it is a mistake that the act is criminalized, and that they made a trade-off where the offense turned out to be the best alternative.

Keywords

Personality disorder Self-control Slippery slope Neutralization technique 

References

  1. Aguilera, R. V., & Vadera, A. K. (2008). The dark side of authority: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arjoon, S. (2008). Slippery when wet: The real risk in business. Journal of Markets & Morality, 11(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, M. L., & Simpson, S. S. (2015). Understanding white-collar crime: An opportunity perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bogen, T. (2008). Hvor var du, historien om mitt liv [Where were you, the story of my life]. Oslo, Norway: Schibsted Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Campana, P. (2016). When rationality fails: Making sense of the ‘slippery slope’ to corporate fraud. Theoretical Criminology, 20(3), 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig, J. M., & Piquero, N. L. (2016). The effects of low self-control and desire-for-control on white-collar offending: A replication. Deviant Behavior. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1174520.Google Scholar
  7. Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731–753.Google Scholar
  8. Eriksen, T. S. (2010). Arven etter Ole Christian Bach—et justismord [The legacy of Ole Christian Bach—a miscarriage of justice]. Oslo, Norway: Norgesforlaget Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Fosse, G., & Magnusson, G. (2004). Mayday Mayday!—Kapteinene først i livbåtene! [Mayday Mayday!—The captains first in the lifeboats]. Oslo, Norway: Kolofon Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Furnham, A., Treglown, L., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2016). The bright and dark side of altruism: Demographic, personality traits, and disorders associated with altruism. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization’s identity. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilligan, G. (2009). PEEPing at PEPs. Journal of Financial Crime, 16(2), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gottschalk, P. (2016). Explaining white-collar crime: The concept of convenience in financial crime investigations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hentschel, A. G., & Livesley, W. J. (2013). The general assessment of personality disorder (GAPD): Factor structure, incremental validity of self-pathology, and relations to DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(5), 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, S., Lyman, D. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Substance use, personality, and inhibitors: Testing Hirschi’s predictions about the reconceptualization of self-control. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 538–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerik, B. B. (2015). From jailer to jailed—My journey from correction and police commissioner to inmate #84888-054. New York: Threshold Editions.Google Scholar
  18. Kogler, C., Muehlbacher, S., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Testing the ‘slippery slope framework’ among self-employed taxpayers. Economics of Governance, 16(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levi, M. (2008). The phantom capitalists. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Piquero, N. L., Schoepfer, A., & Langton, L. (2010). Completely out of control or the desire to be in complete control? How low self-control and the desire for control relate to corporate offending. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Presley, T. (2015). Auditor skepticism, management biases, and the slippery slope. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 21(1), 64–71.Google Scholar
  23. Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: New insights into the problem of employee information security policy violations. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487–502.Google Scholar
  24. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.Google Scholar
  25. Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir) responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357.Google Scholar
  26. Ward, J. T., Boman, J. H., & Jones, S. (2015). Hirschi’s redefined self-control: Assessing the implications of the merger between social- and self-control theories. Crime & Delinquency, 61(9), 1206–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, J., & Alleyne, E. (2010). Street gang theory and research: Where are we now and where do we go from here? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2015). CEO narcissism and the impact of prior board experience on corporate strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(1), 31–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leadership and Organizational BehaviourBI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations