Situational Moral Evaluations: The Role of Rationalizations & Moral Identity

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00224278231152626
• Author: Shaina Herman,Greg Pogarsky
• Date: 01 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Situational Moral

Evaluations: The Role

of Rationalizations &

Moral Identity

Shaina Herman

1,2

and Greg Pogarsky

1

Abstract

Objectives: Criminological research increasingly aims to better understand

criminal behavior in context. Recent advancements demonstrate how per-

ceptions of legal sanction risk are anchored in reality and inf‌luence offend-

ing decisions. Yet research on extralegal considerations involving morality

has not kept pace. Such research has downplayed situational moral dynam-

ics in offending decisions. This study presents and tests a conceptual frame-

work on personal and situational morality that features situational rather

than decontextualized moral evaluations of crime opportunities. Enduring

personal morality is captured with the concept of moral identity. Findings

are presented on the interrelationship between situational inputs, moral

evaluations, and moral identity. Methods: Data are collected with a survey

containing randomized experiments to a nationwide sample of respondents

(n=502). Findings: Situational moral evaluations of specif‌ic crime opportu-

nities vary positively with the presence of circumstances conducive to

1

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, USA

2

Department of Criminology, Max Planck Institute for Crime, Security and Law, Freiburg,

Germany

Corresponding Author:

Shaina Herman, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York,

USA.

Email: sherman@albany.edu

Special Issue: Crime, Choice, and Context

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2023, Vol. 60(4) 493–538

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00224278231152626

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

rationalizing the misconduct. There is also some indication that rationaliza-

tion processes are more pronounced for individuals with stronger moral

identities. Conclusions: Criminological research should more closely target

situational moral dynamics to better understand crime decision-making.

Keywords

moral identity, decision-making, rationalizations, morality, situational moral

evaluations

Introduction

Recent criminological advancements incr easingly aim to better understand

criminal behavior in context. This is evident from research on emotions and

offending (Barnum and Solomon 2019; van Gelder 2013; van Gelder et al.

2022), relaxing the strict “rational actor”assumption (Midgette, Loughran,

and Tahamont 2021; Pogarsky, Roche, and Pickett 2017, 2018; Thomas

and Nguyen 2022) and adopting a multilevel perspective on crime

(Matsueda 2013; Thomas, Baumer, and Loughran 2022). Invariably, empha-

sizing context directs attention to the situations in which offending opportu-

nities arise. On whether sanction risk perceptions are “anchored in reality,”

Barnum, Nagin,and Pogarsky (2021:216) observedthat “because risk percep-

tions are highly dependent on circumstances, questions about risk without

details on context are ill posed.”

1

But crime decisions extend far beyond instrumental consequences, to

extralegal considerations such as morality. Beccaria (1764) invoked moral-

ity to justify state-imposed punishments. Durkheim (1947) suggested that

not meaningfully punishing transgressions can demoralize the general pop-

ulation, and thus threaten societal order. For nineteenth-century phrenolo-

gists, crime resulted from “moral depravity,”which was both discernible

from bodily measurements and “treatable”(e.g., Prichard 1833; Rush

1812). Contemporary research on morality appeals to theories of Social

Learning (Akers 1998, 2017; Sutherland 1947), Moral Foundations (Haidt

2012; Silver and Silver 2021), Situational Action (Wikström 2006), and

Rational Choice (Bachman, Paternoster, and Ward 1992; Paternoster and

Simpson 1996).

Yet research on moral aspects of crime decisions has not kept pace with

recent advancements in perceptions of legal sanction risk. Crime is often

attributed to both situational factors and enduring individual differences

(Nagin and Paternoster 1993, 1994). But an overreliance on decontextualized

494 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 60(4)

moral evaluations in criminology has been problematic on both fronts. These

ref‌lect how morally acceptable it is to commit a specif‌ictypeofcrime,but

without information about the circumstances of the offense. These assess-

ments are commonlyaggregated into an omnibus ref‌lection of “trait”or “per-

sonal”morality. However, crime-specif‌ic evaluations are multidimensional

rather than unitary (Sutherland 1947; Thomas 2018). Also, this conf‌lates a

judgment with an enduring personal attribute by conceptualizing the latter

with the former. Thus, we operationalize enduring personal morality with

the construct of moral identity (Aquino and Reed 2002; Brauer and Tittle

2017; Herman and Pogarsky 2022).

More fundamentally, decontextualized moral evaluations obscure the

role of situational circumstances on offending decisions. Therefore, we

analyze situational moral evaluations of crime opportunities that vary on

key circumstances, such as the location of the incident or persons involved.

Perceptual deterrence research has long studied situational sanction risk per-

ceptions to prevent respondents from imputing circumstances, and to iden-

tify sources for perceptions of risk (Klepper and Nagin 1989; Nagin and

Paternoster 1993). In a comparable fashion, we investigate sources of situa-

tional moral evaluations, focusing here on processes of neutralization or

rationalization (Sykes and Matza 1957; Thomas 2019).

Our perspective comes partly from Sykes and Matza (1957) and Matza

(1964), who critiqued the positivist premise that enduring individual differ-

ences impel people towards crime or conformity. For Matza, people are

more alike than positivist theories imply, and human behavior results

from them exercising agency in unique situations. This agency generally

entails cognitively interacting with one’s surroundings to select from

among various behavioral options to pursue intended goals (Paternoster

2017; Thomas, Pogarsky, and Loughran 2021a, 2021b). Our perspective

also derives from Self-Concept Maintenance Theory (SCMT), which

shares these classical and symbolic interactionist premises, and involves

rationalization processes as well (Mazar, Amir, and Ariely 2008). In

SCMT, people reconcile their self-interests with their desire for a positive

self-concept using “a range of dishonesty within which people can cheat,

but their behaviors, which they would usually consider dishonest, do not

bear negatively on their self-concept”(Mazar, Amir, and Ariely 2008,

634). In both perspectives, the circumstances of a given crime opportunity

can prompt the relaxation of moral standards.

Next, we review criminological research on the personal and situational

moral dynamics entailed in offender decision-making. Thereafter, we

outline our theoretical approach and several resultant empirical expectations.

Herman and Pogarsky 495