Journal of Marketing Management

Vol. 27, Nos. 78, July 2011, 834853

Deviant customer behaviour: A study of techniques of

neutralisation
Lloyd C. Harris, Warwick Business School, UK
Kate L. Daunt, Cardiff Business School, UK

Abstract A number of recent studies argue that consumer misbehaviour is

common and representative of consumer behaviour overall. Concurrently, a
number of leadings scholars have found that consumers employ a number of
cognitive techniques of neutralisation to justify or rationalise their behaviour.
However, existing studies that explore these two issues in conjunction typically
focus on a single form of consumer misbehaviour (e.g. shoplifting). The aim of the
current paper is to investigate the extent to which the techniques of neutralisation
used by service consumers vary across different forms of deviant consumer
behaviour. After providing an overview of extant research into deviant consumer
behaviour and of research into the techniques of neutralisation, we detail our
methodology. Thereafter, we present our findings to reflect the five forms of
deviant consumer behaviour that were most consistently identified by informants
(property abuses, verbal abuses during service, post-service negative word of
mouth, dishonest actions, and sexual exploitation). The findings reveal that
consumers employ various techniques of neutralisation to rationalise or justify
their behaviour, leading to the forwarding of 12 propositions. After a discussion of
the implications of the study for theorists and practitioners, we conclude the paper
with a discussion of the limitations of the study, while highlighting a series of
potentially fruitful avenues of future research.

Keywords consumer misbehaviour; techniques of neutralisation; deviant

behaviours; deviant consumer behaviour; deviant consumers

Introduction

Despite a recent growth in interest among marketing scholars concerning the darker side
of consumption (see Harris & Reynolds, 2004; Yi & Gong, 2008), our understanding of
the justifications and rationalisations associated with deviant consumer behaviour is
lacking. Deviant consumer behaviour or consumer misbehaviour refers to actions by
consumers that violate the generally accepted norms of the setting (see Fullerton &
Punj, 1993, 2004). In the current paper, the terms deviant consumer behaviour and
consumer misbehaviour are used synonymously. It should be noted that while both
terms have a negative inference, this does not mean that such actions are irrational or

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online

# 2011 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
DOI:10.1080/0267257X.2010.498149
http://www.informaworld.com
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 835

illogical, but merely norm violating and deviant from the perspective of marketers. Thus
behaviours that are viewed by firms as deviant misbehaviours are often entirely logical
from the consumers own perspective. Some commentators argue that misbehaviours by
consumers are common (see Fullerton & Punj, 2004). Indeed, this is illustrated by the
findings of Strutton, Pelton, and Ferrell (1997) who contend that the majority of
individuals are merely contingently honest and sporadically digress in undertaking
unethical marketplace behaviours. Moreover, given the increasing prominence of the
service-dominant logic position and the growing acceptance of the centrality of service
dynamics to exchange, an increased understanding of interactive value co-creation
between customers and producers can be viewed as pivotal (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008).
While consumer misbehaviours are argued to be common, little is known about the
rationalisations for such behaviours (Fullerton & Punj, 1993; Harris & Reynolds,
2004). The techniques of neutralisation of Sykes and Matza (1957) provide an
interesting and applicable basis with which to study the motives and justifications
employed by deviant consumers. Sykes and Matza (1957) suggest that five distinct
psychological tactics can be employed by individuals to neutralise and dissipate any
remorse associated with the perpetration of crimes. Notwithstanding a number of
insightful treatises into neutralisation techniques and shoplifting (Strutton Vitell, &
Pelton, 1994), consumer fraud (Rosenbaum & Kuntze, 2003), and generational
differences (Strutton et al., 1997) all within retailing, studies into the broader range
of exchange settings and forms of consumer misbehaviour are lacking. This has
resulted in a number of calls for future research to advance our understanding of
neutralisation within the contexts of service consumers (Grove, Vitell, & Strutton,
1989; Strutton et al., 1997; Vitell, 2003). In particular, it appears that while consumer-
focused studies offer evidence as to the applicability of the techniques of neutralisation
(Chatzidakis, Hibbert, Mittusis, & Smith, 2004; Rosenbaum & Kuntze, 2003;
Strutton et al., 1994), research that attempts to understand the dynamics between
different forms of misbehaviour and the techniques of neutralisation is
underdeveloped (Maruna & Copes, 2004; V.W. Mitchell & Chan, 2002).
The aim of the current paper is to investigate the extent to which the techniques of
neutralisation used by consumers vary across different forms of deviant consumer
behaviour. In doing so, the current study aims to offer insight into the techniques of
neutralisation that consumers employ to justify multiple forms of deviant consumer
behaviour within service exchange settings.
Prior to a discussion of the research approach adopted and the ensuing findings, a
review of these literatures is merited. First, existing studies of deviant consumer
behaviour are reviewed proceeded by an overview of research into the techniques of
neutralisation, which provide insights into the justifications and rationalisations for
consumer misbehaviours.

Deviant consumer behaviour

Extant research on deviant consumer behaviour is most parsimoniously divided into

three themes: the forms, consequences, and antecedents of consumer misbehaviour.
These themes require further review.
Offering a typology of consumer misbehaviours, Harris and Reynolds (2004)
classify eight forms of deviant consumer behaviour within the hospitality sector.
This contrasts with the non-industry-specific categorisation of Fullerton and Punj
(2004), which groups the misbehaviour of consumers according to the target of the
836 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

behaviour. Most recently, Berry and Seiders (2008) differentiate between five forms of
unfair customers. First, verbal abusers refer to consumers who behave in an
offensive and disrespectful manner towards organisational employees. Second,
blamers denote individuals who always position any fault with the firm. Third,
rule breakers represent consumers who knowingly overlook organisational policies
and procedures that they consider to be undesirable. Fourth, opportunists signify
shoppers who are constantly on the lookout for situations in which they may gain.
Finally, returnaholics symbolise consumers who purchase and use products with the
intention of returning them in an illegitimate manner at a later date. Yet, while such
categorisations offer fascinating insights into the varied forms of misdeeds performed
by consumers, research in this area generally lacks empirical validation.
Aligned with research that attempts to classify the diverse forms of deviant consumer
behaviour is a group of literature that offers insight into the consequences of consumer
deviance. Authors who cite the vast financial costs incurred by organisations as a direct
result of consumer misdeeds are numerous within both academic and practitioner-based
literatures (Bamfield, 2004; Covert, 2007; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004; Lawrence,
2004). Fullerton and Punj (1997) note that, in some cases, the financial strain of
dealing with consumer deviance may threaten the existence of some businesses.
Further, the consequences of deviant behaviours by consumers are not only recognised
as having a negative impact on companies financial situations, but also the satisfaction
and well-being of fellow patrons and front-line employees (see Huefner & Hunt, 2000;
Martin, 1996). These forms of consequences are also recognised within the findings of
Harris and Reynolds (2003) who find that deviant consumer behaviour has a profound
impact on organisations, their employees, and other customers. Indeed, research into
the consequences of deviant customer behaviour reinforces that such misdeeds, across
varying organisational settings, represent a genuine and daily problem for managers and
workers on the front line of value co-creation. Accordingly, the importance of research
into the dynamics of deviant consumers is affirmed by this literature.
The final research theme pertains to the antecedents of consumer misbehaviour. The
most popular area of enquiry within this field of study centres on investigating the drivers
of individual forms of consumer misbehaviour. For example, Rose and Neidermeyer
(1999) highlight a number of personal and environmental factors as triggers of episodes
of consumer rage. However, overwhelmingly the majority of research in this area has
centred on investigating the antecedents of acts of consumer theft. For example, Babin
and Babin (1996) cite emotions as fundamental to acts of shoplifting, while, adopting a
different perspective, Tonglet (2002) reveals rational choice (economic gains minus the
perceived risk) to be a key antecedent of episodes of consumer theft. Contemplating the
broader drivers of deviant customer behaviour, Harris and Reynolds (2004) argue that
the consumer dissatisfaction literature offers useful insights. For example, Richins (1983)
identifies deviant behaviour as one of four consumer response styles to dissatisfactory
incidents. Moreover, numerous studies draw a link between consumer dissatisfaction and
the perpetration of deviant behaviours (Fullerton & Punj, 1993; Yi & Gong, 2008).
However, despite sporadic insights, empirical evidence of the common antecedents and
factors associated with consumer deviance is lacking.

Techniques of neutralisation

The techniques of neutralisation (Sykes & Matza, 1957) offer a pertinent framework
with which to explore the behaviours of deviant consumers. Neutralisation techniques
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 837

facilitate individuals in excusing and justifying their misbehaviour (avoiding self-

blame), thus allowing persons to drift back and forth between deviant and
functional behaviour whilst evading any sense of guilt (see Piquero, Tibbetts, &
Blankenship, 2005). Hence, the techniques of neutralisation provide the potential to
enable all individuals (as opposed to the inherently deviant and mentally ill) to
perpetrate deviant behaviours, whilst remaining committed to societal espoused
norms and values. In this regard, from a theoretical standpoint, the techniques of
neutralisation equip every consumer within society with a tool that enables them to
behave in a deviant manner whilst alleviating themselves of any remorse associated
with that behaviour. Consequently, the conceptualisation of Sykes and Matza (1957)
offers a lens with which to view the (arguably) growing pervasiveness of deviant
consumer behaviour in society. Indeed, Fullerton and Punj (1993) argue that
consumer misbehaviour is characteristic of consumer behaviour. From this
viewpoint, deviant behaviour is not viewed as unusual, abnormal, or divisional, but
rather as a reflection of the behaviour of consumers within society (see also Harris &
Reynolds, 2004). Therefore, the techniques of neutralisation facilitate the study of
deviant consumers, since deviants are not viewed as abnormal or splinter groups of
society, but rather as otherwise ordinary consumers who are equipped with validating
and guilt-eradicating strategies, which justify or rationalise incidents of misbehaviour
(Strutton et al., 1994; Vitell, 2003). Thus the theory of techniques of neutralisation
appears to lend itself to the study of deviant consumer behaviour given arguments that
maintain that, at some time in their lives, all consumers will behave in a manner that
might be construed as deviant (Fullerton & Punj, 2004).
Five individual techniques of neutralisation are identified by Sykes and Matza
(1957): denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of
the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties. Denial of responsibility argues that
the misdemeanour was not the fault of the deviant and that they did not mean to do it.
Denial of injury involves cognitions that deny that the deviant behaviour caused
anyone any harm and is therefore excusable. Denial of victim involves altering the
perception of who is perceived as the victim, and is based on the premise that the
injured party had it coming and deserved the behaviour. Thus the victim is
juxtaposed as the deviant (see Piquero et al., 2005). Condemnation of the
condemners entails transferring the focus of attention away from the deviant to the
ethical righteousness of those who condone such behaviour. Arguing, for example,
that the system, police, and so on are corrupt (see Cromwell & Thurman, 2003; Sykes
& Matza, 1957). Finally, appeal to higher loyalties portrays occasions wherein the
deviant remains loyal to the norms of a subgroup above that of wider society.
While Sykes and Matzas (1957) neutralisation techniques are the most widely
accepted and employed within the literature (see Chatzidakis et al., 2004; McCabe,
1992; V.W. Mitchell & Chan, 2002), subsequent research forwards eight additional
forms. First, Klockars (1974) offers metaphor of the ledger (my overall good
behaviour makes up for this indiscretion). Second, Minor (1981) posits defence of
necessity (I had no choice but to do it). Coleman (1994) puts forward denial of the
necessity of law (laws/rules are not needed for this type of behaviour) and claim of
entitlement (I have the right to behave in this way). Within the context of student
deviance, Henry and Eaton (1989) submit claim of relative acceptability (other
people are much worse than me) and claim of individuality (I dont care about the
opinions of others). Finally, in examining the application of the techniques of
neutralisation within a sample of apprehended shoplifters, Cromwell and Thurman
(2003) offer justification by comparison (this behaviour is nothing compared to X
838 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

behaviour) and postponement (I dont think about it) as individual forms of

neutralisation techniques.
Akin to the divergence within the literature concerning the number of applicable
neutralisation practices, disagreement is also evident regarding the temporal nature of
the techniques. In theorising the original five techniques of neutralisation, Sykes and
Matza (1957) conceived such justifications to precede the deviant behaviour, a view
that is also supported by Minor (1981) and Pogrebin, Poole, and Martinez (1992).
However, offering a contrasting perspective, Vitell and Grove (1987) and Grove et al.
(1989) argue that neutralisation practices can be applied both prior and subsequent to
episodes of misbehaviour. This distinction is illustrated by Fritsche (2005), who
distinguishes between neutralisations that precede deviance and rationalisations
that are employed post deviance. However, Cromwell and Thurman (2003) note
that the temporal distinction between each technique of neutralisation is not
absolute, in that the justification used as a neutralisation in one incident may be
applied as a rationalisation by the same individual in a later incident (see also
Hirschi, 1969).
While Sykes and Matza (1957) conceived the techniques of neutralisation within
the context of delinquent behaviour, subsequently the theory has been applied widely
within criminal and deviance research fields. Overwhelmingly, such research has
focused on the applicability of neutralisation to specific types of misbehaviour,
including: deer poaching (Eliason & Dodder, 2000); hate crimes (Byers, Crider, &
Biggers, 1999); veterinarian deviance (Gauthier, 2001); cannabis use (Peretti-Watel,
2003); student cheating (McCabe, 1992); employee deviance (Piquero et al., 2005);
violent behaviour (Agnew, 1994); software piracy (Ingram & Hinduja, 2008); and
fraudulent returning (Rosenbaum & Kuntze, 2003). However, relative to the overall
volume of research, the use of the techniques of neutralisation within the marketing
discipline is rather underdeveloped (Vitell, 2003). Indeed, despite the techniques of
neutralisation being applied to a wealth of individual forms of aberrance, J. Mitchell
and Dodder (1983) and Ingram and Hinduja (2008) separately suggest that individuals
are more likely to apply neutralisation techniques to minor forms of deviant behaviour
(e.g. stealing something of no inherent value),compared with severe forms of
misbehaviour (e.g. violence). Nevertheless, in investigating acts of shoplifting,
Cromwell and Thurman (2003) forward empirical evidence that suggests that
individuals frequently employ more than one technique of neutralisation to disperse
the guilt associated with a single misbehaviour. This view is also supported by the
findings of Chatzidakis et al. (2004) within the context of unethical consumption
habits.

Research design and methodology

The preceding literature review draws attention to the prevalence and the range of
deviant consumer behaviours. This review also highlights techniques of neutralisation
as a potential framework from which consumers deviancy during service encounters
can be explored. Hence, the primary focus of the current study is in elucidating the
techniques of neutralisation employed by consumers when justifying or explaining
their deviant behaviours during episodes of value co-creation (see Vargo & Lusch,
2008). In order to develop a greater understanding of the core concepts and dynamics
within this area, a qualitative approach was deemed appropriate and in-depth
interviews employed in order to gain contextualised insights (see Bryman, 2004).
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 839

Adopting Vargo and Luschs (2004, 2008) contemporary service-dominant logic

position, informants from goods-sharing service systems (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008)
that differ in their level of consumeremployee interaction and thus consumer
co-creation of value were recruited. Using the traditional service classifications,
informants were recruited from five separate sectors: rented goods services, defined
place and spaces rentals, labour and expertise rentals, access to shared environments,
and retail services (see Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007). Specifically, consumers of UK tool-
hire firms, restaurant/hotels, household service firms, health clubs, and general retail
firms were enlisted. In each sector, 12 interviews were conducted (a total of 60
interviews). To generate an informed sample, informants were selected because they
had knowingly participated in at least one incident of deviant consumer behaviour
within the last three months. Potential informants were selected using a quota sample,
designed to include informants of different ages, genders, and ethnic minorities.
Each interview began with the collection of sociodemographic information, and a
discussion regarding the nature of deviant consumer behaviour. Each interview was
transcribed by the research team. Consumers were verbally probed through a set of
open-ended questions to provide a verbal account(s) of the sequence of events
involving their deviant behaviour. Thereafter, rationales, motives, and explanations
for their behaviour were discussed. As recommended by Lindolf (1995), the researcher
seized appropriate opportunity to follow potentially worthy lines of inquiry in order
to encourage elaboration.
The process of data collection continued until the point of theoretical saturation (see
Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was reached or passed. In the current study, theoretical
saturation refers to the point at which no new insights were gained into the forms of
neutralisation employed by consumers. Data analysis focused on the systematic evaluation
of the transcripts of interviews. To structure this process, we employed a variation of the
iterative analysis process originally designed by Turner (1981) and advocated by Reynolds
and Harris (2006) as especially appropriate for analyses of consumer misbehaviour. Our
approach to data analysis centred on seven stages (developing categories, saturating
categories, developing abstract definitions, using definitions, explaining categories,
linking categories, and evaluating links), complemented by the iterative critical
evaluation of the analysis after each stage. To maintain the anonymity of individuals
and organisations, identifying details (e.g. names) have been changed.

Findings
An evaluation of interview transcripts reveals evidence to suggest that deviant
consumers variously employ techniques of neutralisation to explain or defend their
behaviour. However, further analysis indicates that different forms of consumer
misbehaviour are associated with differing techniques of neutralisation. Accordingly,
we structure our findings to reflect the five forms of deviant consumer behaviour that
were most consistently identified by informants, which respectively were: property
abuses, verbal abuses during service, post-service negative word of mouth, dishonest
actions, and sexual indiscretions. These five forms broadly equate to five of the eight
forms identified in a similar context by Harris and Reynolds (2004), but contrast to
other theoretical classifications (Fullerton & Punj, 2004) or categorisations from
different cultural contexts (e.g. Berry & Seiders, 2008). We focus on these most
consistently found forms of consumer misbehaviour, while acknowledging that other
less common forms of consumer deviance exist (e.g. extreme violence and boycotting).
840 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Property abuse
We utilise the definition of Harris and Reynolds (2003, p. 346) of property abuse as
referring to consumers who intentionally vandalize, destroy, or remove items from the
organizational servicescape. Data analysis indicates that two main forms of property
abuse commonly occur: theft and various forms of vandalism (referring to the defacing
or destruction of artefacts within the exchange setting). Theft was found to be far more
common than acts of vandalism (see Fisher & Baron, 1982; Huefner & Hunt, 2000),
which were three times less likely to have occurred. No evidence whatsoever was
found of such consumer misbehaviours where the service involved the rental of labour/
expertise. However, such actions were common in retail contexts and where co-creation
of value involves access to shared environments and defined shared places and spaces.
Indeed, of the general retail, restaurant/hotel, and health clubs interviewed, 27 out of
36 consumers admitted at least one act of property abuse within the last three months.
Predictably, the retail context was most prone to such acts and especially prone to
multiple incidents (one informant freely admitting that her biweekly grocery shopping
involved theft see below example).
As mentioned previously, diverse forms of theft were much more common than acts
of vandalism. Thefts involving goods costing roughly $5 or less were by far the most
commonly occurring and frequently enacted misbehaviours. In retail settings, half of
the consumer interviewed accepted that they routinely (at least three to four times per
year) stole small amounts of products. An example, previously highlighted, involved a
small-scale theft twice a week:

I do my groceries (shopping) twice a week Mondays and Fridays . . . every time

I go, I always do the fruit and veg first. I get my self some nice grapes and eat them
I as I go around. Sometimes Ive eaten half the bag before theyre weighed at the
checkout! . . . The prices they charge, its just balancing the books like! (Female,
aged 52, retail consumer)

Other examples of such theft included the removal of small items from restaurant,
hotels, and health clubs (typically toiletries, ashtrays, and stationary but, in one case,
fresh flowers). Interestingly, these acts of minor theft were each, universally,
neutralised by consumers explicit denial of victim. One consumer commented:

Well, its not as if anybody gets hurt. (Male, aged 28, hotel consumer)

In short, minor theft was cognitively excused by arguing that such acts were so small
and unimportant that no harm occurred. This finding is consistent with the research of
Maruna and Copes (2004) who argue that the techniques of neutralisation are most
applicable and frequently used by respondents in minor forms of misdemeanours.
This finding contrasts with more substantial thefts (over $5), examples of which
include the theft of towels and robes from health clubs/hotels and the concealment of
goods (often in shopping carts) during shopping or during rental. In such cases,
consumers appear to reject the notion that no injury was occurring in favour of
contentions that if service providers are insufficiently thorough, then such theft was
their own fault. For example:

If theyre stupid enough not to check your cart is empty, then what can they
expect? Theyre practically asking folks to take advantage of them. (Male, aged
22, retail consumer)
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 841

In this regard, major (as opposed to minor) forms of theft were generally neutralised by
consumers through the denial of victim technique. This finding is in accord with that
of Strutton et al. (1997) who argue that this denial of victim is the primary technique of
neutralisation employed by shoplifters.
Examples of vandalism were comparatively (to theft) rare. Indeed, most of the cases
of vandalism discussed were often initially described as attributable to carelessness.
Nevertheless, a number of examples emerged of intentional damage, including
damage to hotel rooms, shared facilities in health clubs, and defacing of hired items.
In such cases, consumers typically argued that their behaviour was common. For
instance:
Nobody takes the same care with hire tools who checks it they get another dent?
Another knock? Every time they get hired, they get bashed around. It kinda feels
good to throw them down when youve finished. Everyone does it. (Male, aged 19,
tool-hire consumer)
In this regard, incidents of vandalism were justified by consumers using the
justification by comparison technique of neutralisation, first identified by
Cromwell and Thurman (2003) within the context of consumer theft.
Thus clear differences emerge between the techniques of neutralisation employed
for different types of property abuse. However, data analysis reveals that the three
techniques of neutralisation when applied to the three forms of property abuse share a
common characteristic. That is, each technique of neutralising property abuse was
learned by observing others and employed prior to the act of property abuse. For
example:
I remember walking around the store thinking I cant wait til I get to the car then I
can have some food. Then, somebody walked past eating some grapes and I
thought what kind of idiot am I? . . . and theres no real harm in doing that and off
I went! (Female, aged 26, retail consumer)
In this sense, the differing forms of behaviour neutralisation were rehearsed and
cognitively reinforced before the incident of property abuse. This finding supports
the foundation of Sykes and Matzas (1957) original conceptualisation in which the
authors highlight the importance of social learning and reinforcement concerning the
diffusion of the use of the techniques of neutralisation within broad society. These
findings lead to:
P1a: Consumers will avoid self-blame for minor acts of theft, neutralising their actions
by rehearsing arguments that deny that their actions will cause injury (denial of
injury).
P1b: Consumers will avoid self-blame for major acts of theft, neutralising their actions
by rehearsing arguments that deny that their actions will have a victim (denial of
victim).
P1c: Consumers will avoid self-blame for acts of vandalism, neutralising their actions
by rehearsing arguments that claiming that in comparison, that other acts are worse
than their own (justification by comparison).

Vocal abuse during service encounters

The second form of deviant behaviour entailed vocal abuse by consumers during service
encounters. This is concordant with the oral abusers category of Harris and Reynolds
(2003, p. 348) who define such actions as involving consumers who, principally for
842 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

financial but often subsequently for non-financial gain, orally, and vocally disrupt the
service encounter . . . through intentionally causing offense to fellow customers and
front-line employees by means of oral abuse. Two main motivations emerge for vocal
abuse. First, amongst consumers in restaurants and retail contexts, intentionally false
complaints and vocal complaining designed to illicit financial gain was common with
just over half of consumers, accepting that they had adopted this tactics within the last
three months. Second, and somewhat less common, were occasions of vocal abuse that
appeared motivated by egotistical reasons.
The use of vocal abuse during service was seen by the vast majority of consumers as
an effective means through which monetary gain could be attained. In many cases,
evidence was found that consumers deliberately seek situations or even manufacture
events in order to provide some basis for vociferous complaining and thus elicit
financial recompense. For instance:
Kicking up a fuss is really worth it. Ive had everything from free meals to bottles
of champagne. Youve just got to look out for something to latch on to something
to get going about. Anything really too hot, too cold, too noisy. The best is to let
your coffee go cold then call them over and complain that it was cold when they
served it and youve been trying to catch their eye for ten minutes then just ask
for the manager they always give in! (Male, aged 48, restaurant consumer)
Where monetary gain was the aim of the vocal abuse, consumers typically argued that
such acts were justified, since the target of their actions commonly deserved such
treatment. Vocal abusers did not distinguish between individual workers and their
employing organisations and had little empathy for the employees subjected to their
(sometimes) prolonged vocal abuse. For financially motivated vocal abusers, monetary
gain was primary on the basis that such contexts were open to such abuses and, in this
sense, warranted such actions. For example:
Well, given the prices they charge, they cant be surprised if customers get them
back! Getting 10 or 20 or 30% off your bill is worth it. Its not as if theyd even notice
it. I mean, nobodyll lose their job or anything. (Female, aged 37, retail consumer).
In this sense, this form of vocal abuse was neutralised in the minds of consumers through
their denial that their actions involved the other party being a genuine victim. This
finding is divergent to research that, from the organisations and specifically employees
viewpoint, demonstrates that such misbehaviour by consumers represents a common
and destructive feature of front-line workers daily jobs (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004;
USDAW, 2004).
This finding also contrasts strongly with cases of ego-oriented vocal abuses.
Although ego-oriented abuse was less common, incidents appeared to be more
sustained and vociferous than financially motivated abuse (probably because victims
of such abuse could not halt the abuse simply by offering recompense). For ego-
related vocal abusers, their actions were justified by claims that other consumers
would act in a more extreme way. A consumer comments:
I think that giving him an earful back is what anybody would have done. You would
have youd have given him what for and more besides! (Female, aged 41, health-
club consumer)
In this regard, where vocal abuse is designed to benefit the abusers ego, such abusers
defend their behaviour though unsupported claims that, as other consumers also
participated in these acts, their own actions were justifiable.
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 843

Consistent with the techniques of neutralisation employed by property abusers,

financially motivated vocal abusers rehearsed their cognitive defence for their planned
actions prior to such acts. In most cases, previous experience of similar acts led to a
very rapid rehearsal of these arguments immediately prior to an act of vocal abuse. For
example:
When the opportunity arose, I just went for it. I can remember thinking this is just
like last time; well, its their own fault. (Male, aged 23, retail consumer)

However, where ego gains underpinned vocal abuse, acts of vocal abuse were
cognitively neutralised post behaviour. Thus:
After yelling at somebody, I think its only natural that you think about it
afterwards. You think was I right to yell? Thinking it through, you can see I was
only doing what any normal, sane person would what youd have done. (Female,
aged 29, household-services consumer)

Thus not only do the techniques of neutralisation differ between the forms of vocal
abuse, but also the timing of such neutralisations varies. These findings lead to:
P2a: Consumers will avoid self-blame for financially motivated vocal abuse,
neutralising their actions by rehearsing arguments that deny that their actions will
have a victim (denial of victim).
P2b: Consumers avoid self-blame for ego-oriented vocal abuse, post-hoc neutralising
their actions by that denying that their actions are atypical or unusual (condemning
the condemners).

Malicious/false post-service negative word of mouth

The third form of deviant consumer behaviour entails malicious or false post-service
negative word of mouth (NWOM); that is, NWOM is used as a mechanism by
consumers to release tension, get back at businesses, regain control over distressing
situations, gain sympathy from others, and convey their high standards to others (Nyer,
1999). Having experienced below-expectations service, it is widely acknowledged that
consumers may respond with negative comments (Arnold, Reynolds, Ponder, & Lueg,
2005; Bougie, Peters, & Zeelenberg, 2003; Richins, 1983). In this regard, it is perhaps
not surprising that deviant consumers may also react in a similar fashion (see Huefner
et al., 2002; Kalamas, Laroche, & Makdessian, 2008). However, while functional
consumers use NWOM to comment on perceived poor experiences, deviant consumers
deliberately use NWOM to comment about a service, knowing that service standards are
above their own expectations. In short, deviant consumers lie about standards or make
disparaging comments to other consumers that are designed to malign employees or
firms (see Reynolds & Harris, 2005). Although some evidence emerged that making
false reports were common across all of the contexts studied, this form of deviant
NWOM was predominately found amongst consumers of household services, with
many of those consumers interviewed claiming that they had knowingly made false
comments regarding service provision to other potential customers. In contrast,
intentional malicious NWOM was most commonly reported by consumers of rental
and retail services.
The deliberate use of false NWOM by household-services consumers is viewed by
the majority as a legitimate ruse to protect their current provision. A consumer
explains:
844 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

My cleaner and gardener are absolutely fantastic a husband and wife team,
coming three mornings a week. Ive been asked dozens of times by neighbours
about whether they are any good or if they have a few free days. I always tell them
that theyre pretty damn rubbish and Im looking for better ones myself and/or Ill
pass on your number. I never do getting them was difficult enough if they
worked for somebody else, pretty soon theyd be off working for them every day. No,
I like things just the way they are. (Female, aged 46, household-services consumer)
However, while consumers rationale can be viewed as protectionist, post-hoc
rationalisation of acts of intentionally false NWOM surprisingly universally centred
on neutralisation arguments that such actions are to the benefit of all parties (including
the slandered service provider). For example:
It is in both of ours best interest they get steady work and I get a reliable future.
A few white lies to keep the status quo seems best all round. Recommending
people to friends is never a good idea. When things go wrong they blame you
best to let things lie as they are. (Female, aged 62, household-services consumer)
Thus consumers knowingly lie about the service they are receiving to protect their
current provision and neutralise their norm-breaking acts through arguing that such
behaviours are to the benefit of all.
This contrasts with examples of malicious NWOM amongst rental and retail
consumers. In such contexts, consumers focused their attention on a particular
employee who they claimed had slighted them during a previous encounter.
Consequently, consumers argued that intentionally malicious NWOM was justified
on the grounds that the service provider deserved such responses. In this sense, akin to
Huefner and Hunts (2000) account of customer retaliatory behaviours, it appears that
a number of respondents knowingly bad mouth organisations as a means of taking
revenge. A tool-hire consumer comments:
I tell all my friends not to use CBS tool hire. Not while that creep works there
I tell them all hell rip you off hes on the make. It wouldnt surprise me if he
breaks things just to charge you more and pockets the difference. It all comes
from when I rented two mixers from him. I took them back and he charged me for
a late return on one of them it was only a couple of hours not my fault. Said hed
only charge me for one because I was a regular but I still think he ripped me off. Ill
shave my beard off before I put any more work his way he brought it on himself.
(Male, aged 34, rental consumer)
Although it is difficult to gauge using retrospective data analysis, evidence was found
to suggest that in all of the eight cases of malicious NWOM, the originating slight or
insult to the consumer were perceptual and typically involved the employee
enforcing company rules regarding very small (often below $5) charges. This is
concordant with research that states that organisations need to pay attention to the
smallest details, given that these issues are disproportionally important to consumers
(Backstrom & Johansson, 2006; Bowers, Martin, & Luker, 1990).
As with ego-related vocal abuse, consumers neutralisation processes occurred post
incident, wherein consumers reflect on their actions and avoid self-blame through a
post-hoc rationalisation. A consumer comments:
I did feel a little guilty about saying they were unreliable, but I though about it
afterwards and Im convinced that this is for the best the lesser of two evils.
(Female, aged 32, household-services consumer)
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 845

Thus, while deviant consumers who use malicious or false post-service NWOM may
subsequently cognitively trace their behaviours to earlier incidents or events, the
process of self-blame avoidance to justify their norm-breaking activities occurs after
they have deliberately mislead or lied. Hence:

P3a: Consumers will avoid self-blame for false NWOM, post-hoc neutralising their
actions by claiming that their actions benefit all parties (appeal to higher loyalties).
P2b: Consumers avoid self-blame for malicious, NWOM, post-hoc neutralising their
actions by that deny that their actions have a victim (denial of victim).

Dishonest actions
The fourth form of deviant behaviour is labelled dishonest acts and refers to
consumers behaviours or actions that are knowingly deceitful or fraudulent. Some
evidence emerged to suggest that consumers in all contexts studied are prone to
sporadic acts of dishonesty or deceit. In retail contexts, fraudulent returning was
found in rented goods, shared environment rentals, and for labour services (in this
study, respectively, tool hire, health clubs, and household-service consumers),
deliberate attempts to avoid payment occurred, while fraudulent compensation
letter writing was found amongst restaurant and retail consumers. However, each of
the three main forms of consumer dishonest action was neutralised by consumers in
differing ways. These require further discussion.
First were acts of intentional fraudulent returning to retail firms. Here, consumers
deliberately returned functional used goods or post-purchase, self-damaged goods,
while claiming that the purchased items had not be used or were faulty prior to
purchase. While largely motivated by financial reasons, consumers participating in
such behaviours employed (often simultaneously) two techniques of neutralisation.
Two fraudulent returners comment:

Copying a CD or DVD doesnt do anybody any harm at all. I buy it, watch it, and then
take it back in pristine condition. No harm done! [denial of injury] I mean, Im
pretty good most of the time but the occasional CD doesnt hurt [denial of injury
and metaphor of the ledger techniques]. (Male, aged 20, retail consumer)
Oh, nobody really loses [denial of injury]. A little slip every now and again is okay
I very rarely do it. Generally Im a good little customer! [metaphor of the ledger].
(Female, aged 33, retail consumer)

Thus deviant retail consumers explained that their returning of used goods did not
harm the source firm, and, as such, such behaviours did not cause injury (Sykes &
Matza, 1957) and that such acts were justifiable as relatively rare episodes, which were
negated by otherwise functional behaviour (the metaphor of the ledger technique
discussed in Klockars, 1974). Such self-justification appears delusional, given
research that suggests that fraudulent returns are increasing and reduce retail
profitability by 1020% (see King, 2004). These findings are broadly consistent with
the seminal study of Rosenbaum and Kuntze (2003) who found that highly cynical
customers employ neutralisation techniques to justify their unethical actions.
An allied form of dishonesty centred on deliberate acts to avoid payment for usage
found largely amongst consumers of shared environments and household services.
While fraudulent returners claim that their acts have no victim, payment avoiders
argue that their actions are merely a reflection of their cunningness, and that other
consumers act in significantly more deviant ways. A consumer explains:
846 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

So, I get in for free every now and again. So what? Ive seen people here stealing
bits of kit! Actually stuffing kit into their bags! Im nothing in comparison! (Male,
aged 37, health-club consumer)
Thus payment avoiders claim that their deviant actions are relatively acceptable when
the significantly greater deviant acts of other consumers are considered. This
justification reflects an amalgamation of the relative acceptability technique of
neutralisation (Henry & Eaton, 1989) where acts are defended by claiming others
act in a worse fashion, and the justification by comparison technique (see Cromwell &
Thurman, 2003) wherein consumers claim that their actions are less deviant than other
acts (in these vignettes, stealing).
Finally, and least common, were dishonest acts by restaurant and retail consumers
wherein deliberately false or exaggerated written complaints were manufactured for
financial gain (see also Harris & Reynolds, 2004). These compensation letter writers
cognitively neutralised their behaviours through claiming that such acts were deserved
by the target firms. A restaurant consumer notes:
Restaurants which are daft enough not to check things out are going to get taken
for ride. Most of the time you get a standard sorry letter and a voucher. (Female,
aged 26, restaurant Consumer)
In this way, consumers fraudulent attempts to gain financial recompense were self-
neutralised through arguments that firms should expect consumers to act in a deviant
way and take advantage of firms complaining systems.
While the range of consumers dishonest actions are characterised by differing techniques
of neutralisation, the three forms of deceitful behaviour share the common trait of cognitive
rehearsal prior to behaviour. That is, while acts of malicious or false NWOM were
rationalised and excused post event, for each of the three forms of consumer dishonesty,
arguments for the avoidance of self-blame were rehearsed pre-behaviour. For example:
Before I took it [a used article of clothing with which the informant had quickly
become bored] back, I thought to myself they can still sell it on to somebody so
theres no harm done, really. So I did it. (Female, aged 23, retail consumer)
Thus dishonest acts by consumers are characterised by a process of neutralisation
before an act of dishonesty occurs. Therefore:
P4a: Consumers will avoid self-blame for fraudulent returning, neutralising their
actions by rehearsing arguments that deny that their actions will cause injury
(denial of injury) and/or through arguing that such acts are rare behavioural
aberrations (metaphor of the ledger).
P4b: Consumers will avoid self-blame when deliberately avoiding payment,
neutralising their actions by rehearsing arguments that claim that other consumers
act in a worse fashion (relative acceptability) and that other acts are significantly
more deviant (justification by comparison).
P4c: Consumers will avoid self-blame when fraudulently attempting to gain
compensation, neutralising their actions by rehearsing arguments that deny that
their actions will have a victim (denial of victim).

Sexual indiscretions
Data analysis reveals that the least common form of deviant consumer behaviour
entails sexual indiscretions against personnel. For the purposes of the current study,
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 847

sexual indiscretion refers to vocal or behavioural acts by consumers in which they

express their sexual desires to personnel (cf. Folger & Fjeldstad, 1995; Jackson,
Veneziano, & Riggen, 2004). Compared to the other four forms of deviant consumer
behaviour, acts of sexual indiscretion can be viewed as a relative rarity, with only seven
cases found in the study. This finding is also consistent with that of USDAW (2004),
which reveals sexual indiscretions to be the least common form of front-line worker
abuse. However, this category of consumer behaviour is significant, since differences
in cognitive neutralisation emerged between cases where the perpetuator knew the
recipient prior to the encounter and cases where the recipient was unknown to the
perpetuator prior to the act of sexual indiscretion. While Harris and Reynolds (2004)
uncover a range of sexual predation behaviours in their study of front-line employees
(including an extreme example of a threat to rape), in our study of consumers,
the sexually motivated behaviours described by consumers are notably more
circumscribed. Nevertheless, in three of the seven cases, the acts described by
consumers constitute a criminal offence of sexual assault (involving non-consensual
physical contact), while the remainder of the cases involve comments to employees,
which could be viewed as harassment.
In each case, consumers describe behaviours towards employees that involve
comments or acts that could be viewed as highly inappropriate. However,
consumers avoided self-blame for these deviant acts through claiming that no injury
is caused. For example:

Achh! I dont think that she minded no harm - just a bit of fun! (Male, aged 42,
restaurant consumer)
They expect a bit of banter doesnt hurt any just a bit of flirting and a slap on the
rump! Nothing serious like. (Male, aged 55, retail consumer)

While the research design of the study (involving data collection from consumers and
not from employees) precludes definitive claims that such action caused injury to
personnel, it seems logical to assume that such actions are not universally welcomed
or encouraged by employees.
As mentioned earlier, a clear division emerged in the nature of the neutralisation
technique employed by consumers, depending on the extent to which the consumer
had had prior interaction with the recipient. Where the consumer claimed to know the
recipient, having met or interacted during earlier encounters, denial of injury occurred
prior to a sexual indiscretion. For instance:

I thought about it before I did it Id known her since she started there I was her
first customer Id didnt think shed mind didnt seem to! (Male, aged 51,
restaurant consumer)

However, where the employee was unknown prior to the act, post-hoc neutralisation
occurred in two ways. Consumers either neutralised their actions through the denial of
victim or through the metaphor of the ledger technique wherein indiscretions are
justified by their rarity. For example:

Afterwards, I did think about it. If Id have been less tipsy, Id probably have
thought about it a bit more. But after, I thought no harm done no problem
a bit of laugh! (Male, aged 42, restaurant consumer)
I dont think that an occasional slip is too out of order. Its not like I do that
everyday! (Male, aged 55, retail consumer)
848 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

In this sense, sexual indiscretions by deviant consumers provide an illustrative and

interesting example of how consumers varying in the timing of their neutralisation
processes. This leads to:
P5a: Consumers will avoid self-blame for sexual indiscretions against familiar
personnel, neutralising their actions by rehearsing arguments that deny that their
actions will cause injury (denial of injury).
P5b: Consumers will avoid self-blame for sexual indiscretions against unfamiliar
personnel, post-hoc neutralising their actions by that deny that their actions have a
victim (denial of victim) or via claims that such acts are rare behavioural aberrations
(metaphor of the ledger).

Implications and conclusions

Interviews with consumers revealed participation in a broad range of deviant consumer

behaviours. Furthermore, evidence was found that indicates that consumers employed a
number of differing techniques of neutralisation both prior to the event and during post-
hoc rationalisations. A summary of our results can be found in Table 1. The remainder of
this paper is dedicated to the discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of
these findings, as well as to highlighting the limitations of this study and suggestions for
further research.

Table 1 A summary of the main findings.

Forms of deviant consumer

behaviour Neutralisation technique Prior or post event
Property abuses
Minor acts of theft Denial of injury Prior
Major acts of theft Denial of victim Prior
Vandalism Justification by comparison Prior
Vocal abuse during service encounters
Financially motivated Denial of victim Prior
Ego orientated Condemning the Post
condemners
Malicious/false post-service NWOM
False NWOM Appeal to higher loyalties Post
Malicious NWOM Denial of victim Post
Dishonest actions
Fraudulent returning Denial of injury Prior
Metaphor of the ledger
Avoiding payment Relative acceptability Prior
Justification by comparison
Fraudulent compensation claims Denial of victim Prior
Sexual indiscretions
Against familiar personnel Denial of injury Prior
Against unfamiliar personnel Denial of victim Post
Metaphor of the ledger
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 849

Implications for theory

The first contribution of this study is an empirical one, since it constitutes the first
attempt to explore holistically the broad range of deviant consumer behaviours and
the techniques of neutralisation that consumers use to neutralise their misdeeds. This
supports a number of earlier commentators who argue that the theory regarding the
techniques of neutralisation may provide an insightful perspective in explaining how
and why consumers participate in deviant acts. Indeed, the findings of the study go
some way in explaining why consumers act in deviant ways. These findings strongly
suggest that consumers justify or rationalise their deviant behaviours to evade self-
blame and avoid uncomfortable feelings of guilt. Interestingly, while for reasons of
parsimony we categorise consumers deviant behaviours into five main forms, analysis
of these categories reveals differences in both the nature of that behaviour, as well as
the associated technique of neutralisation employed.
A second contribution of the study centres on the techniques of neutralisation
uncovered. Considerable support is found for the categorisation of Sykes and Matza
(1957), in that evidence is found that four of the techniques they identify are employed
as justifications/rationalisations for consumer deviant behaviour (denial of injury, denial of
victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties). However, no
evidence emerged of the use of the denial of responsibility technique of neutralisation. In
this regard, it would appear that consumers recognise their norm-breaking behaviour and
take responsibility for their actions (albeit after justifying or rationalising their actions).
Support also emerges for techniques other than those of Sykes and Matza (1957). In
particular, consumers also employed the justification by comparison, the metaphor of the
ledger technique, and claims of relative acceptability (see earlier). As such, the current
study supplies empirical evidence of the generalisability of these techniques, and supports
the view that analyses of neutralisation should embrace wider categorisations.
While many of the forms of deviant consumer behaviour were linked to individual
techniques of neutralisation, in three cases consumers employed multiple methods to
justify their actions. For example, consumers deliberately avoiding payments employed
two techniques simultaneously through arguing that their behaviour was justified on the
grounds that other consumers were worse offenders (claiming relative acceptability) and
that other behaviours were significantly more deviant (a claim of justification by
comparison). This supports the view that consumers employ more than one technique
concurrently. In this regard, the findings of this study support (at least in part) the
argument that analyses of neutralisation should embrace the notion that, in some
situations, consumers employ the various techniques simultaneously and concurrently.
Finally, the current study offers findings that are of relevance to extant theory
concerning the temporal nature of the techniques of neutralisation. The present
findings offer support for distinguishing between neutralisations that are engaged
before the misdeed and rationalisations that are employed after deviance, as a means
of alleviating the guilt associated with the given behaviour. The current study also offers
additional insight into the temporal nature of the techniques of neutralisation in
uncovering evidence that indicates that specific forms of deviant consumer behaviour
are commonly linked to either pre- or post-behaviour justifications. In offering insights
into the sequential nature of how individuals utilise techniques of neutralisation
according to the behaviour performed, a deeper understanding of the dynamics of
neutralisation and rationalisation techniques is garnered. Indeed, such insights suggest
that such deviant behaviours make it impossible to deliver excellent service in the
co-creation process.
850 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Implications for practice

The findings of the study also have implications for practitioners. The current study
finds strong support for the view that consumers use a variety of techniques of
neutralisation either to rationalise their actions prior to misbehaviour or to justify
their conduct after deviant acts. As, from the perspective of managements, these acts
are almost exclusively deviant, this provides insights into a phenomenon practitioners
will wish to reduce. This use of neutralisation by consumers indicates an awareness of
the deviant nature of these behaviours, at least, prior to neutralisation. As such,
consumers (at least initially) appear to experience uncomfortable guilt. To reduce
intentional consumer misbehaviour, organisations may well find it prudent to
reinforce the negative consequences of such actions making both pre- and post-
encounter neutralisation more difficult and thus the behaviour less likely. Public policy
marketers have effectively used a similar approach when highlighting the harm of
socially undesirable activities (e.g. the harm of smoking for the smoker and those
around them; vocal and physical abuse towards health care providers). Thus managers
wishing to reduce consumer misbehaviour could focus on emphasising the consequences
for the perpetrator (from fines to social embarrassment) and/or the extent to which
deviant acts harm others (from front-line employees to other customers)

Limitations and suggestions for future research

In particular, four limitations and avenues of future research are worthy of note. First, the
focus of the current study has been on theory generation and theoretical generalisability.
Subsequent studies are needed to evaluate the empirical generalisability of the findings.
Whether qualitative or quantitative in nature, the focus should be on generating
comprehensive data and findings that can be broadly generalised. In this regard, studies
across varying cultural contexts are needed to explore and elucidate similarities and
differences. Second, in order to explore further the temporal nature of the techniques of
neutralisation employed by deviant consumers, a longitudinal design appears desirable.
Through gauging cognitions prior and post activity (the length of time between periods of
data collection varying according to the behaviour studied), researchers should be able to
gain insights into the sequencing of neutralisations. Third, the focus of the study has
concentrated on behaviours and cognitions. In this regard, the subjects of interest have
been the thoughts and behaviours of consumers. However, this can be viewed as rather one-
sided, in that the role of companies and their employees in driving and even encouraging
consumer misbehaviour is neglected. Future research could focus on this issue alone or,
indeed, study both parties simultaneously. In exploring how organisations may invite,
encourage, or trigger consumer misbehaviour, contextual factors appear especially worthy
of study. Future research should aim to elucidate which firm-controlled contextual factors
in the servicescape are linked to misbehaviours and thus provide useful managerial insights.
Finally, future studies could benefit from adopting differing perspectives of understanding
consumer neutralisation. A far from exhaustive list of potentially interesting perspectives
includes relationship marketing, attribution theory, and cognitive dissonance theory.

References
Agnew, R. (1994). The techniques of neutralization and violence. Criminology, 32(4),
555580.
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 851

Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J.E. (2005). Customer delight in a retail
context: Investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences. Journal of Business
Research, 58(8), 11321145.
Babbin, Barry J., & Babin, Laurie A. (1996). Effects of moral cognitions and consumer emotions
on shoplifting intention. Psychology and marketing, 13 (8), 785802.
Backstrom, K., & Johansson, U. (2006). Creating and consuming experiences in retail store
environments: Comparing retailer and consumer perspectives. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 13, 417430.
Bamfield, J. (2004). Shrinkage, shoplifting and the cost of retail crime in Europe: A cross-
sectional analysis of major retailers in 16 European countries. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 32(5), 235241.
Berry, L.L., & Seiders, K. (2008). Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons, 51, 2937.
Bougie, R., Peters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Angry customers dont come back, they get
back: The experience and behavioural implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 377393.
Bowers, M.R., Martin, C.L., & Luker, A. (1990). Trading places: Employees as customers,
customers as employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(2), 5569.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social science research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Byers, B., Crider, B.W., & Biggers, G.K. (1999). Bias crime motivation: A study of hate crime
and offender neutralization techniques used against the Amish. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 15(1), 7896.
Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., Mittusis, D., & Smith, A. (2004). Virtue in consumption? Journal of
Marketing Management, 20, 527544.
Coleman, J.W. (1994). Neutralization theory: An empirical application and assessment.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Oklahoma State University, Department of Sociology, Stillwater.
Covert, J. (2007, April 11). Big retailers join forces to fight shoplifting rings. The Wall Street
Journal, p. B.5B.
Cromwell, P., & Thurman, Q. (2003). The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by
shoplifters. Deviant Behaviour, 24, 535550.
Eliason, S.L., & Dodder, R.A. (2000). Neutralizing among deer poachers. Journal of Social
Psychology, 140(4), 536538.
Fisher, J.D., & Baron, R.M. (1982). An equity-based model of vandalism. Population and
Environment, 5(3), 182200.
Folger, I., & Fjeldstad, I.H. (1995). On duty Off guard: Cultural sexual harassment in service
organizations. Organization Studies, 16(2), 299313.
Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V.-W. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and Internet-
related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 121128.
Fritsche, I. (2005). Predicting deviant behaviour by neutralization: Myths and findings. Deviant
Behaviour, 26(5), 483510.
Fullerton, R.A., & Punj, G. (1993). Choosing to misbehave: A structural model of aberrant
consumer behaviour. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 570574.
Fullerton, R.A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption:
Consumer misbehaviour. Journal of Business Research, 57, 12391249.
Gauthier, D.K. (2001). Professional lapses: Occupational deviance and neutralization
techniques in veterinary medical practice. Deviant Behaviour, 6(1), 467490.
Grandey, A.A., Dickter, D.N., & Sin, H.-P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer
aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 25, 397418.
Grove, S.J., Vitell, S.J., & Strutton, D. (1989). Non-normative consumer behaviour and the
techniques of neutralization. In R. Bagozzi & J.P. Peter (Eds.), Proceedings of the AMA Winter
Educators Conference (pp. 131135). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Harris, L.C., & Reynolds, K.L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer behaviour.
Journal of Services Research, 6(2), 144161.
852 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Harris, L.C., & Reynolds, K.L. (2004). Jaycustomer behaviour: An exploration of types and
motives in the hospitality industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5), 339357.
Henry, S., & Eaton, R. (1989). Degrees of deviance: Student accounts of their deviant behaviour.
Salem, WI: Sheffield.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (2000). Consumer retaliation as a response to dissatisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 13, 6182.
Huefner, J.C., Perry, B.L., Payne, C.R., Otto, S.D., Huff, S.C., Swenson, M.J., & Hunt, H.K.
(2002). Consumer retaliation: Confirmation and extension. Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 15, 114127.
Ingram, J.R., & Hinduja, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: An empirical examination.
Deviant Behaviour, 29, 334366.
Jackson, A., Veneziano, L., & Riggen, K. (2004). Sexual deviance among male college students:
Prior deviance as an explanation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(1), 7289.
Kalamas, M., Laroche, M., & Makdessian, L. (2008). Reaching boiling point: Consumers negative
affective reactions to firm-attributed service failures. Journal of Business Research, 61, 813824.
King, T. (2004). An analysis of the phenomenon of deshopping of garments in womens wear
retailing. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Brunel University, Uxbridge, England.
Klockars, C.B. (1974). The professional fence. New York: Free Press.
Lawrence, G. (2004). Designing out crime: The retail perspective. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 32(12), 572576.
Lindolf, T.R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maglio, P.P. & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1820.
Martin, C.L. (1996). Consumer-to-consumer relationships: Satisfaction with other consumers
public behaviour. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30, 1.
Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2004). Excuses, excuses: What have we learned from five decades of
neutralization research? Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 221320.
McCabe, D.L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students.
Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365374.
Minor, W.W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical
examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 295318.
Mitchell, J., & Dodder, R.A. (1983). Types of neutralization and types of delinquency. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 12(4), 307318.
Mitchell, V.-W., & Chan, J.K.L. (2002). Investigating UK consumers unethical attitudes and
behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 526.
Nyer, P.U. (1999). Cathartic complaining as a means of reducing consumer dissatisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 12, 1525.
Peretti-Watel, P. (2003). Neutralization theory and the denial of risk: Some evidence from
cannabis use among French adolescents. British Journal of Sociology, 54(1), 2142.
Piquero, N.L., Tibbetts, S.G., & Blankenship, M.B. (2005). Examining the role of differential
association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant
Behaviour, 26, 159188.
Pogrebin, M.E., Poole, E.D., & Martinez, A. (1992). Accounts of professional misdeeds: The
sexual exploitation of clients by psychotherapists. Deviant Behaviour, 13, 229252.
Reynolds, K.L., & Harris, L.C. (2005). When service failure is not service failure: An
exploration of the types and motives of illegitimate customer complaining. Journal of
Services Marketing, 19(5), 321335.
Reynolds, K.L., & Harris, L.C. (2006). Deviant customer behaviour: An exploration of
frontline employee tactics. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(2), 95111.
Richins, M.L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal
of Marketing, 47, winter, 6878.
 Harris and Daunt Deviant customer behaviour 853

Rose, R.L., & Neidermeyer, M. (1999). From rudeness to roadrage: The antecedents and
consequences of consumer aggression. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 1217.
Rosenbaum, M.S., & Kuntze, R. (2003). The relationship between anomie and unethical retail
disposition. Psychology and Marketing, 20(12), 10671093.
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E., & Ferrell, O.C. (1997). Ethical behaviour in retail settings: Is there a
generation gap? Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 87105.
Strutton, D., Vitell, S.J., & Pelton, L.E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate
behaviour in market settings: An application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of
Business Research, 30, 253260.
Sykes, G.M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: Theory of delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22, 664670.
Tonglet, M. (2002). Consumer misbehaviour: An exploratory study of shoplifting. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 1(4), 336354.
Turner, B.A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: One way of organizing
the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and
Quantity, 15, 225247.
USDAW (2004, June). Life on the frontline: A report on shopworkers experience of work-related
violence and abuse. Manchester, England: Author.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 117.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-Dominant logic: continuing the evolution, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 110.
Vitell, S.J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 3347.
Vitell, S.J., & Grove, S.J. (1987). Marketing ethics and the techniques of Neutralisation. Journal
of Business Ethics, 6 (6), 433438.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2008). The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer
citizenship behaviour and customer dysfunctional behaviour. Industrial Marketing
Management, 37(7), 767783.

About the authors

Lloyd C. Harris (PhD, Wales) is a professor of marketing and strategy at Warwick Business
School. His main research interests include dysfunction during consumption and service
encounters, the marketingorganizational behaviour interface, online service dynamics, and
organizational culture. His work has been published in the Journal of Retailing, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Services Research, Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Management Studies, and the Journal of Services Marketing.
Corresponding author: Dr. Lloyd C. Harris, Warwick Business School, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
T 44(0) 24 7652 2309
E Lloyd.Harris@wbs.ac.uk

Kate L. Daunt (PhD, Wales) is a lecturer in strategic marketing at Cardiff Business School. Her
main research interests include; customer complaining dynamics, dysfunctional customer
behaviours, dysfunctional behaviour at work, and servicescapes. Previously, her work has
appeared in the Journal of Retailing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Marketing theory
and Practice, and the Journal of Services Marketing.
T 44(0) 29 2087 6794
E dauntk@cardiff.ac.uk
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.