Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (26)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Significance and Interpretation of Replies to Motivational Questions: The Case of Sex Offenders

Laurie Taylor

University of York

This paper examines in brief the relative significance which has been attached by social scientists to motivational accounts. Particular emphasis is placed upon the early work by C. Wright Mills and the attenuation of his theoretical statement is traced through to contemporary interactionist perspectives. An empirical study is reported which considers two elements in motivational theory: (a) the range of available motives for a particular type of deviancy—in this case sexual deviancy, (b) the relative acceptability of the available motives to powerful others—in this case magistrates. The results are discussed in terms of the significance for the actor of being effectively deprived of the opportunity to describe his behaviour in other than a deterministic vocabulary of motives.

Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 23-39 (1972)
DOI: 10.1177/003803857200600102
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Sex AbuseHome page
R. K. Hanson and H. Scott
Assessing Perspective-Taking Among Sexual Offenders, Nonsexual Criminals, and Nonoffenders
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, January 1, 1995; 7(4): 259 - 277.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Probation JournalHome page
Explaining Sex Offending in Court Reports
Probation Journal, March 1, 1993; 40(1): 15 - 21.
[Abstract]

Home page
 SociologyHome page
M. Emmison
On the Interactional Management of Defeat
Sociology, May 1, 1988; 22(2): 233 - 251.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyHome page
W. W. Minor
Techniques of Neutralization: a Reconceptualization and Empirical Examination
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, July 1, 1981; 18(2): 295 - 318.
[Abstract]

Home page
 SociologyHome page
P. Rock
Another Common-Sense Conception of Deviancy
Sociology, January 1, 1979; 13(1): 75 - 88.
[Abstract] [PDF]