NEUTRALIZATION THEORY HOLDS THAT MOST DELINQUENTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO THEIR MISDEEDS, BUT MERELY APPLY EXCUSES IN ORDER TO NEUTRALIZE CULTURAL NORMS AS THEY RELATE TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES. TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF NEUTRALIZATION THEORY, THE RELATIVE VALUE OF NEUTRALIZATION AND COMMITMENT IN EXPLAINING DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR AMONG A SAMPLE OF YOUTHS ENTERING JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IS ASSESSED. COMMITMENT IS MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECTS' AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS REGARDING ILLEGALITY ('IT IS ALL RIGHT TO GET AROUND THE LAW IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT') AND IMMORALITY ('TO GET AHEAD YOU HAVE TO DO SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT RIGHT'). NEUTRALIZATION IS MEASURED BY RESPONSES TO NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES (I.E., THE VIEWS THAT MOST DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR DOESN'T REALLY HURT ANYONE AND THAT 'SUCKERS' DESERVE TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF). DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR INCLUDES SELF-REPORTED INVOLVEMENT IN THEFT, VANDALISM AND ASSAULT. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR AND UNCONVENTIONAL COMMITMENT IS STRONGER THAN WOULD BE EXPECTED UNDER NEUTRALIZATION THEORY, THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE THEORY REQUIRES REINTERPRETATION. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBDIVISION OF BELIEFS INTO TWO OPPOSED CLASSES, NEUTRALIZING AND COMMITTING, IS MISLEADING AND SHOULD BE REPLACED BY AN UNCONVENTIONALITY CONTINUUM. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS ARE DISCUSSED. SIX TABLES AND A LIST OF REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.