The problem of the youth antisocial behaviour in the British society is discussed at several levels. Today definite Antisocial Behaviour Orders are developed by the government as one of the main measures in order to control and correct the facts of antisocial behaviours in community.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this practice is argued by the researchers, sociologists, and psychologists because of the complexity of the notion of antisocial behaviour and its connection with the adolescents’ behaviour (Burney 2009; Connell et al. 2011).
That is why the major issues which are discussed in the literature on the topic of reducing youth antisocial behaviour with the help of legislative programmes are associated with the questions of the definition of the term, the problem of the programmes’ effectiveness, the possible success in the usage of the community-related programmes, and the role of the family in the process.
The term ‘antisocial behaviour’ is rather broad and has different variants of its interpretation from the position of the governors, psychologists, and sociologists. There is also a number of associated notions. Thus, Burney states that it is necessary to distinct between the notions which can be discussed by the public as equal ones because they refer to the same field, but are connected with different problems.
These terms are, for instance, ‘disorder’, ‘crime’, and ‘antisocial behaviour’. According to Burney, “‘disorder’ is a term applied collectively to communities; ‘anti-social behaviour’ is something done by individuals who are thereby singled out and blamed for the harm they inflict upon communities” (Burney 2009, p. 2).
Following Burney’s considerations, it is possible to say that antisocial behaviour is predominantly connected with the specific behaviour of a person or a group of person which influences the character of their interactions with other representatives of the community negatively.
Moreover, it is also important to pay attention to the fact that the term of ‘antisocial behaviour’ also involves the problem of the intrusive measures realized against individuals (Burney 2009).
To define the term more clearly, it is significant to focus on the examples or patterns of realizing by the youth their antisocial behaviour in communities. Connell, Cook, Aklin, Vanderplong, and Brex developed the study in which they concentrated on the analysis of the most typical patterns of antisocial behaviour using the results of conducting the survey (latent class analysis) in a nonmetropolitan region of Britain (Connell et al. 2011).
According to their survey, such types or patterns of the youth antisocial behaviour as damaging property, stealing, vandalism, and fighting were determined. Furthermore, the evidences stated that the fact of antisocial behaviour was in the most cases fixed by police (Connell et al. 2011).
Having determined the most frequent patterns of antisocial behaviour typical for the youth in Britain, the researchers analysed the results of the survey and proposed the groups or classes of antisocial behaviours (ASBs) organised according to their severity. These classes are a non-ASB class, a mild ASB, a moderate ASB, and a serious ASB class (Connell et al. 2011).
If Connell and the group of researchers’ classification is based on the level of severity of the definite antisocial behaviour (according to the determined patterns), the types of antisocial behaviour provided by Frick and White depend on such a characteristic as callous-unemotional (CU) traits (Frick & White 2008).
Concentrating on this term, the researchers determine such influential traits as the absence of empathy presented by the adolescents in their personal interactions, the lack of guilt as the determiner of the level of their responsibility and tolerance (Frick & White 2008). Therefore, callous-unemotional traits are important factors for forming the youth model of antisocial behaviour.
The focus on the problem of antisocial behaviour in Britain resulted in the development of the practice of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) as the measure to realise the antisocial behaviour policy in the country. The project of ASBOs was presented in 1998. It was worked out as the measure to control and regulate the level of antisocial behaviours in society.
Today this order is associated with the antisocial behaviour of adolescents who are inclined to realising different antisocial behaviour patterns. In his research, Donoghue discusses the problem of ASB and ASBO with references to such terms as ‘reflexive modernity’ and ‘risk society’ (Donoghue 2008).
From this point of view ASBOs are considered not only as the ways of the legislative control but also as the facts of the social control. Explaining the aspects of the notion of ‘risk society’, Donoghue states that ‘risk society’ provokes the occurrences of the youth antisocial behaviours (Donoghue 2008).
That is why the effectiveness of realising ASBOs in the context of modern ‘risk societies’ depends on reformatting the main principles of providing ASBOs as the key controlling and regulating measures.
However, there are many categories according to which it is necessary to analyse the aspects of ASBOs. In their research, Flint and Nixon concentrate on the concepts of citizenship, self-regulation, and responsibilities as the basic ones for determining the idea of a socially appropriate behaviour.
The authors of the research focus on the discussion of ASBs from the point of Antisocial Behaviour Orders, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, and tenancy agreements (Flint & Nixon 2008).
However, along with paying much attention to the government’s role in providing the legislative programmes for controlling the situation and reducing ASBs Flint and Nixon emphasise the role of communities in regulating the youth antisocial behaviour (Flint & Nixon 2008).
They also make accents on the fact that the effectiveness of the governmental measures and legislative programmes significantly depends on the range of the regulatory mechanisms used.
In spite of the fact Flint and Nixon discuss the issue with focusing on the character of interactions and antisocial behaviour in definite residential areas, their conclusions can be used for the proper analysis of the situation with the occurrences of antisocial behaviour at individual and community levels (Flint & Nixon 2008).
Thus, legislative programmes can become more effective, if they are implemented with referring to the development of the system of community control. Many researchers agree that the social effect of involving the community in the process of controlling and regulating the youth antisocial behaviour is higher than the effectiveness of such programmes as, for instance, ASBO (Burney 2009; Donoghue 2008; Flint & Nixon 2008).
Moreover, to regulate the issue of antisocial behaviour which is typical for adolescents in Britain, it is necessary to use all the opportunities to predict it (Flint & Nixon 2008). That is why researchers accentuate the role of community and family in forming the individual vision of possible positive interactions in society which do not abuse the interests of the other people (Donoghue 2008).
Psychologists state that antisocial behaviour of adolescents is in many cases a result of reflecting the situation at home, the character of relations between parents and the relations of the individual with his or her parents (Burney 2009; Donoghue 2008).
Analysing the role of the relations between parents and their children, Connell, Cook, Aklin, Vanderplong, and Brex states that positive relations in families which are based on the principles of mutual understanding between the members of the family can be considered as the protective factor or as a key aspect for predicting the further antisocial behaviour of adolescents.
Moreover, this protective factor can be discussed as effective for different levels of antisocial behaviour (Connell et al. 2011). To understand the nature of the adolescents’ possible antisocial behaviour, Ensor, Marks, Jacobs, and Hughes concentrates on the examination of the aspects of the relations between the siblings in the family (Ensor et al. 2010).
The fact of demonstrating aggression, anxiety, and hatred directed toward the other children in the family is typical for many families. Nevertheless, to state that such situation in the family can provoke the adolescents’ further antisocial behaviour, it is necessary to analyse all the aspects of the problem. The researchers determined three factors according to which they examined the siblings’ behaviour.
These factors were the refusal to interact with each other, the frequency of the occurrences of bullying and harming each other (Ensor et al. 2010). The results of the research confirm the psychological visions of the nature of relations between siblings. Moreover, they can be discussed as significant for the development of the possible strategies of predicting the issues of antisocial behaviour in the future (Ensor et al. 2010).
The role of the community and family is also significant with references to the factors which can stimulate children and adolescents’ antisocial behaviour.
Paying much attention to CU traits, Frick and White focus on the connection between the realization of these traits in childhood and adolescence and the role of the community in regulating the development of CU traits which can lead to the formation of the antisocial and aggressive youth. Mahoney, Stattin, and Lord conducted the investigation on the base of the sample from Sweden.
The researchers examined the peculiarities of the unstructured youth recreation centre participation and concluded that the participation in such centres also cannot be considered as the effective measures to regulate the adolescents’ behaviour and predict their further antisocial behaviour (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord 2004).
Such conclusions are the result of the analysis of the adolescents’ relations between each other and between them and their peers in the centres. Thus, according to the research’s evidences, many peers can provoke, stimulate, and promote the adolescents’ antisocial behaviour (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord 2004).
The controversial question of the effectiveness of legislative programmes as the measures to control the youth antisocial behaviour is also associated with the problem of predicting and regulating.
In their research, Rutten, Biesta, Dekovic, Stams, Schuengel, and Verweel state that it is possible to use such methods as a forum theatre intervention in order to create the necessary positive atmosphere in the group of adolescents and avoid or correct the issues of antisocial behaviour (Rutten et al. 2010).
Nevertheless, the findings of the research accentuated the fact that the changes in the antisocial behaviour of the youth are not significant in comparison with the other methods to correct the ASBs (Rutten et al. 2010).
To provide the effective research of the problem of reducing youth antisocial behaviour through legislative programmes in Britain, it is important to concentrate on the methods used for conducting the investigation, collecting the necessary data and evidences, and analysing the findings. The issue of antisocial behaviour is closely connected with the aspects of psychology of children and adolescents.
That is why it is effective to use the research methods which are generally utilised while conducting the psychological surveys and investigations (Breakwell 2006). Sekaran proposes a range of research methods which can be successfully used in providing the studies in the field of social sciences (Sekaran 2006).
According to the criteria presented in the book by Sekaran, the research on the topic of reducing youth antisocial behaviour in Britain should be realised with the help of combination of such methods as the elements of the quantitative research and the aspects of the descriptive study (Sekaran 2006).
The priorities of the programmes developed to solve the problem of antisocial behaviour in the British society are generally changed according to the main principles provided by this or that prime-minister.
According to the findings presented in the researched literature, the existing policies should be reformed with references to the new social demands and requirements because of the fact that community control and definite measures provided at the community level can work more effectively in comparison with the effectiveness of the legislative programmes.
There were several stages in discussing the effectiveness of ASBOs which reflected the public and governmental vision of the issue. Thus, the whole campaign has faced a lot of criticism from different sides. It is possible to say that the majority of the British society agrees that the Antisocial Behavior Orders are not really successful in stopping the development of antisocial behavior in Britain (Squires & Stephen 2005).
Reference List
Breakwell, GM 2006, Research methods in psychology. Sage Publications Ltd, London.
Burney, E 2009, Making people behave: anti-social behaviour, politics and policy, Willan Publishing, Cullompton, UK.
Connell, CM, Cook, EC, Aklin, WM, Vanderplong, JJ, & Brex, RA 2011, “Risk and protective factors associated with patterns of antisocial behaviour among nonmetropolitan adolescents”. Aggressive Behaviour, vol. 37 no. 1, pp. 98-106.
Donoghue, J 2008, “Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBO’s) in Britain: contextualizing risk and reflexive modernization”. Sociology, vol. 42 no. 2, pp. 337-355.
Ensor, R, Marks, A, Jacobs, L, & Hughes, C 2010, “Trajectories of antisocial behaviour towards siblings predict antisocial behaviour towards peers”. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, vol. 51 no. 11, pp. 1208-1216.
Flint, J & Nixon, J 2006, “Governing neighbours: Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and new forms of regulating conduct in the UK”. Urban Studies, vol. 43 no. 5-6, pp. 939-955.
Frick, PJ & White, SF 2008, “Research review: the importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behaviour”. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, vol. 49 no. 4, pp. 359-375.
Mahoney, J, Stattin, H, & Lord, H 2004, “Unstructured youth recreation centre participation and antisocial behaviour development: selection influences and the moderating role of antisocial peers”. International Journal of Behavioural Development, vol. 28 no. 6, pp. 553-560.
Rutten, EA, Biesta, GJJ, Dekovic, M, Stams, GJJM, Schuengel, C, & Verweel, P 2010, “Using forum theatre in organized youth soccer to positively influence antisocial and prosocial behaviour: a pilot study”. Journal of Moral Education, vol. 39 no. 1, pp. 65-78.
Sekaran, U 2006, Research methods for business: a skill building approach. Wiley-India, Mumbai.
Squires, P & Stephen, DE 2005, Rougher justice: anti-social behaviour and young people, Willan Publishing, Cullompton.