examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime

Abstract

A limited number of studies have examined white-collar offending decision making patterns and virtually none have focused on testing Differential Association or Techniques of Neutralization theory in particular. This study evaluates the offending decisions of MBA students to commit corporate offending in the promotion/sales of a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug. The sample consisted of 133 MBA students enrolled at a university in the United States. Findings supported predictions that anticipated agreement of coworkers and the board of directors would be positively associated with decisions to further market and produce a hypothetical drug that was about to be recalled by the Food and Drug Administration. However, results also showed that the decision to commit corporate crime was inversely related to perceptions that close friends and business professors agree with the decision, which went against predictions based on differential association theory. Several neutralizing techniques—especially the beliefs that government exaggerates dangers to the consumer and profit is the most important priority—predicted the decision to further market the drug. Subsequent analyses showed that older respondents were more likely to employ techniques of neutralization in decisions to commit corporate crime, especially techniques relating to profits. Future research directions are outlined.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 229 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.