After a transgression, people often use neutralizations to account for their behavior, for instance, by apologizing or offering a justification. Previous research has mostly centered around the intrapersonal effects of neutralizations on actors. Consequently, we know very little of the interpersonal effects of neutralizations on observers' perceptions and judgments. Our overarching hypothesis is that neutralizations that contain an acknowledgment of wrongdoing (i.e., apologies and excuses) lead to more favorable perceptions of the transgressor and the transgression than neutralizations that do not (i.e., justifications). We report three studies (N = 800) to investigate the relationship between the type of neutralization used and observers' perceptions of actors and their behaviors. Our findings show that actor and behavior are evaluated differently depending on whether the neutralization used is an apology, an excuse, a consequentialist justification, or a deontological justification. Overall, justifications led to more negative evaluations (especially when invoking deontological reasoning), while apologies and excuses fostered more positive evaluations. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the social dynamics of norm violations and the social and legal implications for enforcing norm abidance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).