Understanding Anti-Social Behaviour

areas or communal housing—which results in stigmatization as troublemakers (Cowan et al., 2008). Despite efforts to correct this issue with effective policies; shortfalls have led to alternative policies like CBOs being introduced in 2012 (Kelly, 2012). Regrettably these policies are frequently ridiculed by society making them ineffective resulting in abandonment. According to "Tackling anti-social behaviour" from 2016 people are advised to contact their local council regarding issues of anti-social behavior but this method has minimal effect on preventing future occurrences.

Increasing funding for education, particularly for children from lower class backgrounds who may be more prone to anti-social behavior, is a potential solution. This may involve providing more one-on-one attention in school or investing in after-school programs that offer safe alternatives to loitering on the streets. According to sociologists like Becker (2008), individuals who engage in deviant behavior often reject societal rules and feel judged by others. This could explain why some social housing residents may turn to criminal or otherwise deviant activities as they are viewed as outsiders by society. However, since deviant behavior is a social construct, it can vary across cultures and people, making labeling individuals as "outsiders" or "deviants" an inaccurate portrayal at times.

According to a sociologist, anti-social behavior is the result of labeling and status frustration. Societal labeling of sub-cultures as deviant creates delinquent subcultures and anti-social behavior due to frustration within the labeled subculture (Cohen, 2002). White working class young men are more likely to be labeled as "folk devils" by the media and public, creating a moral panic about their particular sub-culture. Once labeled, members often conform to their label and commit crimes. For instance, the "mods" and "rockers"

were previously peaceful until they were labeled otherwise by the media which amplified crime and led to riots between these two groups. In addition, working class youths who cannot achieve societal goals turn towards crime for status and resources. While sociology suggests that anti-social behavior results from labeling or status frustration; social psychology proposes that genetics or learned behavior contribute to such behaviors.

Studies have linked biological factors, such as elevated testosterone levels and inheriting an aggressive gene from parents, to the male inclination towards anti-social behavior (Craig & Halton, 2009). These factors can raise the probability of engaging in criminal activity or displaying aggressive and anti-social conduct. Nonetheless, environmental factors also play a vital role in shaping behavior. Research indicates that children with social problems and aggression frequently possess insecure attachments, highlighting the importance of parenting and upbringing in the development of anti-social behavior (Lyons-Ruth, 1996).

Psychologists have extensively studied the Attachment theory and identified three types of attachment - secure, insecure avoidant, and insecure resistant. The "strange situation" study served as a basis for further research on attachment, including the 1970 monkey study by Ainsworth & Bell. This study revealed significant connections between aggression and attachment, with isolated infant monkeys exhibiting similar traits to neglected children such as aggression and no emotional ties with peers. These findings support the nature vs nurture debate, which highlights the role of environment in antisocial behavior (Harlow et al., 1965). Social learning theory also supports this concept by suggesting that anti-social behavior is learned from environments. Bandura's (1973) bobo doll experiment involving three groups of children demonstrated this by showing an increase in aggression among participants who witnessed aggressive

behavior from an adult model.

Although genetic research is not as advanced as environmental analysis, it is evident that behavior is influenced by both genetics and environment.

Due to the complexity of human behavior, solely attributing anti-social behavior to biological, environmental or societal factors is insufficient. A combination of these and other factors is more likely to result in anti-social behavior. The Bulger case (A+E Networks, 2014) is a well-known example from a psychological perspective that underscores this point. Two known troublemakers named Jon Venables and Robert Thompson brutally tortured and murdered three-year-old James Bulger at age ten, further highlighting their anti-social tendencies.

According to media reports, the two boys allegedly played violent video games and watched Child's Play 3, a film that includes scenes resembling James Bulger's torture and murder, including the throwing of blue paint on the victim (Kirby, 1993). Despite the lack of concrete evidence linking these events to violent media, they contributed to a moral panic about "video nasties." Moreover, it is evident that both children had difficult upbringings and inadequate social care, which could have fostered extreme antisocial behavior.The display of learned behavior in a cultural setting provides valuable insight for psychologists studying antisocial behavior. Both sociology and social psychology can offer explanations for this behavior, with some differences. Sociology examines how society responds to individuals and how groups react to antisocial behavior, especially among working-class young men. On the other hand, psychology focuses on the causes of individual antisocial behavior and the prevalent debate surrounding the role of nature versus nurture. They consider how surrounding environments can positively or negatively shape young people and the overlooked biological factors that might contribute to

this behavior, which may not be included in sociological analysis.