SBU Brooklogue

by Joshua Isakharov, September 29, 2023

Ever wonder why a person is suddenly motivated to do something that they know is wrong? Incredibly,  psychological influences have more power over people than they might believe. Oftentimes, good people commit deviant behaviors. A good person is a person who otherwise displays actions and qualities that are intended to promote the welfare of society. A deviant behavior is an action done by an individual that breaks or defies social norms. A social norm is the behavior typically expected by an individual from the society they live in during that time period. Thus, a good person committing a deviant act can be defined as a typically moral individual who generally promotes social welfare through their actions but at times commits actions that violate the morals and norms of society. While the greed factor is often touted as an explanation for deviance, neutralization theory and the pressure to conform are far superior explanations for why good people commit deviant behaviors.

Neutralization theory is a theory stating that people (or in this case good people committing deviant behaviors) will make use of one or multiple justifications in order to neutralize their actions (Bernard). According to this theory, a good person will cognitively justify their deviance in their mind through a train of thought. A neutralization, or rationalization, is a thought process that a person will undergo to explain or justify their action. In fact, neutralizations are considered to be one of the most, if not the “most important explanation of deviant behavior” (Kaptein and van Helvoort 1261). The theory can therefore be used to explain why a good person will “do bad” as “they did not know it was bad” (Sampson 123). The reason why the otherwise good person failed to acknowledge their action as bad is because they neutralized the action in their mind. 

In this context, the usage of the word “bad” is used interchangeably with deviant. For example, if an otherwise upstanding citizen steals a little bit of money from someone else, they can rationalize the action in their mind by telling themselves that it’s not a bad thing since other people do it or that the person they stole from did not really need the money. This rationalization has the effect of cognitively convincing a person that their action was not bad and did not defy standard social norms. This justification is indeed how “a good deal of ethical misbehavior starts [as] a small misstep at the beginning, a recognition that it doesn’t do much harm, and a continuance, until one has developed behavior that is habitually perverse” (Duska 23). This neutralization is exactly how the infamous swindler Bernie Madoff justified his Ponzi scheme, as “he cheated a little bit at the beginning, got away with it, and fell into a pattern or habit of taking from one person and giving it to another” (Duska 23). Although Bernie Madoff may not be an example of a star citizen, one can argue that he was not such a deviant person before he started his Ponzi scheme. There are many other Bernie Madoffs in this world; otherwise good people who neutralized one deviant action before that one deviant action became a habit that made them into a monster.

Neutralizations are a critical component of explaining deviant behavior. A popular saying in society that exemplifies neutralizations is “the ends justify the means.” According to one psychologist, “if an outcome is important, [people] begin to believe that the ‘ends justify the means’” (Riggio). When a person begins to believe that their actions are okay in context, then they can engage in ego protection and can freely commit acts of deviance, especially if their actions result in something meaningful to them. If a person’s end goal is to make as much money as possible, they may not care who they trample on in the process as that end goal is so important that any and all actions leading up to their end goal will be justified even if deviant. Through their studies, two psychologists named Cressey and Matza argue “that delinquents possess a system of rationalizations that allow them to (temporarily) view crime as acceptable in particular situations” (Thomas 7). The work of Cressey and Matza illustrates the very concept of “the ends justify the means” as the delinquents studied neutralized their behavior situationally in order to justify the means to their end goal. 

Furthermore, “prior work has shown that situational rationalizations and general moral beliefs are not strongly correlated and are distinct constructs” (Thomas 7). An otherwise good, moral person can thus situationally exonerate themselves of any deviant behaviors as their morals are not really related to their system of justification. The fact that these two systems are not connected only reaffirms the idea that good people can commit deviant behavior. The idea that morals and situational rationalizations are distinct explains why “among U.S. adolescents, 93 percent report disapproval for hitting another person and 97 percent report disapproval for stealing, while the prevalence of such behaviors is substantially higher” (Thomas 8). Many otherwise moral youth are good people who have strong beliefs and know what is morally right and wrong based on societal norms, yet many still engage in behaviors that defy societal norms such as hitting others and stealing. Once again, “the concept of situational rationalizations addresses this” phenomenon “because it denies that delinquents must outright approve of delinquency and holds instead that they temporarily approve of it given certain circumstances—that is, they are able to sidestep their abstract disapproval of delinquency by applying a rationalization” (Thomas 8). In order to free themselves from society’s bounds, people will rationalize their behavior based on the situation they are in so that they do not have to break any moral beliefs they might hold. Through this strategy, a person can fully believe that their behavior was not in any way morally incorrect, offering a straightforward explanation as to why a person can commit a deviant act in one moment and then carry on with their lives as if they are a good, not deviant, person in the next.

Most acts of deviance are internally justified. One popular justification of deviancy is “‘Everybody does it’” (Duska 24). This popular saying is a form of ego protection as it allows an individual to neutralize unpleasant feelings that may arise from their actions. After all, “the maintenance of self-esteem and self work [are] among [the] strongest and most persistent human goals” (Bersoff 28). Ego protection is an extremely integral part of human existence and allows for neutralizations to occur. An example of this would be an underage individual engaging in illegal alcohol and drug consumption and then telling themselves it is okay because “everybody does it.” Although the underage individual may know that it is wrong to drink alcohol and take illegal drugs, they will utilize this saying in an attempt to neutralize any unpleasant feelings associated with their deviant behavior. However, it is important to note that “there are situational differences in the difficulty of applying a rationalization” (Thomas 11). An individual may not be able to hit an elderly man and steal his money as easily as taking illicit drugs, as it might be harder to say that “everybody does it” to hitting an elderly man than it would be for taking illicit drugs.

Additionally, a study conducted by David Matza suggests that part of the reason why people commit deviant acts is social (Thomas 7). Humans are social beings. As a result of being social beings, “people learn to behave in accordance with the wishes or habits of those who lead their tribes” (Duska 23). Since people will often follow their leaders, their actions can often be attributed to social pressures. It is why a person will commit deviant behavior based on the wish or command of a boss as they are socialized in a manner that teaches them to follow the leader. Despite an individual’s belief of being “autonomous and self-ruling,” studies such as Milgram’s experiment illustrate the “large extent [to] [which] people are likely to respond to authority” (Duska 24). Milgram’s study involved participants being told to administer a shock to another person if they got an answer to a question wrong, with each successive shock being higher in voltage, and thus more fatal. Even when the participants did not want to administer the shock, an authority figure strongly encouraged obedience (McLeod). The fact that most people were obedient to authority elucidates how Nazi soldiers carried out terrible atrocities, even if they did not want to. Therefore, a big reason why otherwise good people commit deviant behavior is because most people are socialized into believing that they need to be obedient to authority and need not question it. Consequently, most people justify their actions as being of those in authority instead of their own.

Besides possessing a strong obedience to an authoritative  figure, people are most often loyal to their group and feel the need to go with the group rather than against it. Oftentimes, when members of “a group [engage] in unethical behavior, individuals are far more likely to participate in or condone that behavior rather than risk standing out” (Bradberry). Due to the need for approval and acceptance, an individual would rather let members of their group commit unethical actions or even join in on the deviant behavior than go against the grain and condemn the deviance. People dislike confrontation, and going against the group you are a part of risks confrontation and possible expulsion from the group. Therefore, since “people have a tendency to keep their heads down”,  “ethical behavior at times requires heroic effort” (Duska 23). Rather than be a hero and risk standing out for their morality, an otherwise good person will commit deviance for the sake of conformity and group cohesion, which they can later neutralize in order to protect their ego. 

Although there may be additional reasons for why otherwise good people commit deviant behaviors, the neutralization theory as well as the feeling of needing to conform are the most influential. Some may argue that money is a largely influential factor in deviant behavior. However, in the case of stealing, “research on employee theft does not support the theory that workers steal, in general, because they need the money” (Bersoff 29). In fact, “three out of four shoplifters can afford to buy the merchandise they have taken, and many are even caught carrying enough money to pay for the lifted items” (Bersoff 29). Money may very well play a pivotal role in why good people do deviant things, but it is not the most influential. As shown by the aforementioned research, it is more likely those who shoplifted did so as a consequence of social pressure or as a rationalization of the action as “not bad,” allowing them to protect their ego and steal despite possessing the capacity to pay.

It is abundantly clear that people will justify their deviant actions in some manner in order to protect their egos. However, not all hope is lost as there are ways to combat our own deviancy, as we are all capable of committing some degree of deviancy. One such way a person can do this is by strengthening their mind and increasing their willpower (Duska 24). In his book, Can’t Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds, David Goggins relays many techniques he has used to increase willpower and offers practical solutions to help others increase their own willpower. Although mastery of such a technique may not come easy, it can be very effective and can improve a person’s lives in various ways besides simply preventing deviance. A solution against group influences would be to “recall what your mother said when you asserted that everybody does it. Your mother would say, ‘I don’t care if everybody does it (jump off the bridge, jump off the cliff ), that doesn’t make it right’” (Duska 24). According to Duska, this popular saying was found to be universal among students of different cultures in some form or another (24). This conveys how although a person can be influenced by social pressures, they can still resist and do not have to take part in deviancy. Therefore, through the use of anti-rationalization techniques, a person can protect themselves against committing potential acts of deviancy and can thus contribute to a stronger moral character of not just themselves, but those around them as well.

Works Cited

Bernard, Thomas J.. “Gresham M. Sykes”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Oct. 2022 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gresham-M-Sykes. Accessed 24 February 2023.

Bersoff, David M. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 28–9., https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001003. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

Bradberry, Travis. “14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things.” Inc.com, https://www.inc.com/travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-that-make-good-people-do-bad-things.html. 

Duska, Ronald. “Why Good People Do Bad Things: Applications to Financial Advisors—The ‘WIZARD.’” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Sept. 2013, pp. 23–24. 

Kaptein, Muel, and Martien Van Helvoort. “A Model of Neutralization Techniques.” Deviant Behavior, vol. 40, no. 10, 1 Dec. 2018, p. 1261., https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.

Mcleod, Saul. “The Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics.” Simply Psychology, 8 Mar. 2023, https://simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023

Riggio, Ronald E. “The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 1 Nov. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things. 

Sampson, Steven. “Good People Doing Bad Things.” Journal of Legal Anthropology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, p. 123., https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2021.050105. 

Thomas, Kyle J. “Rationalizing Delinquency: Understanding the Person-Situation Interaction through Item Response Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 1, 26 July 2018, pp. 7–11., https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818789752. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.