Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Vieraitis, L., Piquero, N., Piquero, A., Tibbetts, S., & Blankenship, M. (2012). Do women and men differ in their neutralizations of corporate crime? Criminal Justice Review, 37 (4), 478–493. Retrieved from

Neutralization theory has commonly been used to understand the motivations of street offending, and recent studies have examined the use of neutralization techniques by corporate and white-collar offenders to account for their crimes. However, few researchers have explored whether this process is gendered. Using data from master of business administration (MBA) students, this study examines how gender influences intentions to inhibit or promote the sale of Panalba, a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug known to harm people, as well as how gender moderates the relationship between techniques of neutralization and corporate offending decisions. Results show that while there are bivariate gender differences in corporate offending decisions and in some of the techniques of neutralization, there are few gender differences in the effect of techniques of neutralization on corporate offending decisions. Directions for future research are highlighted.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What is neutralization theory?
2. Where did the data come from for this research study?
3. What did the authors conclude about gender and corporate crime?
    

Article 2: Vakhitoa, Z., Reynald, D., & Townsley, M. (2015). Toward the adaptation of routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories to account for cyber abuse victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(2), 169–188. Retrieved from

With the advent of the Internet and the emergence of cybercrimes (e.g., cyber stalking, cyber harassment), criminologists have begun to explore the empirical utility of lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories (RATs) to account for personal victimization as a consequence of cyber abuse. Available cyber abuse studies have produced inconsistent empirical support for both models, which has reignited the debate about whether terrestrial theories, such as RAT, will ever be able to adequately explain cybercrimes due to the spatial and temporal disconnect between the theories and the cyber environment. This article reviews existing cyber abuse scholarship, explores potential reasons for the weak empirical support for routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories in cyberspace, and proposes several directions for future research. We suggest that to further our understanding of cyber abuse processes, scholars need to carefully define and operationalize the key theoretical concepts in the light of latest developments in RAT (i.e., addition of new controllers—handlers and place managers, and super controllers), and conduct in-depth qualitative studies, as well as quantitative studies, that employ robust methodological designs and multilevel statistical analyses.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. According to the authors, what are two of the latest developments of the routine activity model?
2. The authors state that there is a “disconnect between the theories and the environment of cyberspace.” Explain.
3. How should the operationalization of suitable target and capable guardianship each be modified when studying cybercrime?