2003/06/01 by Jana L. Pershing · 1 citation
Business, Management and Accounting · Environmental Science · Social Sciences · #Policing Practices and Perceptions #Regulation and Compliance Studies #Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
paper · doi:10.1525/sop.2003.46.2.149
openalex publication_date 2003/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
The controversy over self-regulation has been a central topic of inquiry in sociological research on occupational misconduct and crime. However, few studies have examined the process by which organizational members decide whether to respond to the misconduct of peers, and none have examined the use of neutralization techniques by rule enforcers in organizational settings. The research presented here is based on a case study of the U.S. Naval Academy. Three data sources are analyzed: Survey data collected from Academy midshipmen, semistructured interviews with graduates, and official statistics on occupational misconduct. Findings reveal that Academy members employ a number of neutralization techniques depending on whether they counsel peers, report peers, or choose not to respond to misconduct. Midshipmen who counsel are appealing to peer loyalty, while those who report wrongdoing find themselves neutralizing the effects of violating informal norms about peer loyalty. In contrast, those who ignore misconduct must neutralize the potential effects of betraying loyalty to the institution. In addition to calling for the expansion of neutralization techniques research to include rule enforcers, the implications of this study suggest that the concept be refined to examine the impact of conflicting loyalties on the types of neutralization techniques employed in systems of self-regulation.