Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An Investigation of Everyday Morality and Anti-Social Behaviour
By
Jan Adams
Completed in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy
Submitted to Edge Hill University
Department of Law and Criminology
October 2018
1
I would like to dedicate this thesis, in loving memory of Nanny Amy.
2
Acknowledgements
Personal Acknowledgements:
Father.
John, husband.
Family and close friends.
Beloved departed.
Professor Andrew Millie.
Dr Leon Culbertson.
Special Acknowledgements:
Academic Supervisors: Professor Andrew Millie & Dr Leon Culbertson.
Dr Nikki Craske & Graduate School.
Jane Hartlebury & Disability Inclusion Team.
Law and Criminology Department.
Dr Debbie Pope & Psychology Department.
Philosophy Reading Group.
Revd Janet Heighton & Rainford Church Friendship Group.
Dr Alana Barton, Professor Jeremy Brown & all Thesis Examiners.
Generous Feedback from kind Academics.
Research Participants & Community Groups.
3
Contents
Acknowledgments - 3
Contents – 4
Abstract – 8
Chapter 1 – Introduction: Anti-Social Behaviour
Introduction - 9
Origins of the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ - 12
History of talk about anti-social behaviour - 18
Political discourse on ASB - 21
Perceptions and tolerance of ASB - 24
Who are perceived as ASB perpetrators? - 28
Alternative methods for tackling ASB? - 30
Family interventions - 32
ASB and deprivation - 34
Crimes of everyday life - 37
Official data on ASB - 38
Conclusions - 41
Chapter 2 - Anti-Social Behaviour and Everyday Morality
Introduction - 43
Common morality - 45
Virtues - 49
Everyday civility – 50
Everyday morality and relativism - 52
Individual morality - 53
A Kantian perspective - 55
Social contexts of everyday morality - 62
Everyday morality and society - 64
Linking perceptions of ASB to everyday morality - 68Conclusions - 70
4
Chapter 3 – ASB, moral regulation and responsibilisation
Introduction - 72
ASB, respect and moral regulation - 72
Self-regulation and responsibilisation - 76
The ‘law abiding’ majority - 78
Talk of moral decline and respect - 81
Civility and social norms - 82
Conclusions - 83
Chapter 4 – Methodology
Rationale - 85
Location selection – 87
Focus groups – 88
Sampling - 89
Use of vignettes - 90
Ethical considerations - 93
Harm to participants - 93
Informed consent - 94
Invasion of privacy - 94
Deception - 94
Rationale for method of analysis - 95
Research appraisal - 99
Limitations of the current study – 100
Chapter 5 - Analysis and Discussion
Introduction - 103
Perceptions of what constitutes ASB - 104
Youthful ASB - 106
Issues of understanding ASB and impacts - 109
What defines ASB? - 111
5
Perceived Causes of ASB - 112
Parenting - 115
Disrespect - 116
Individual factors and ASB - 120
Moral explanations of ASB - 123
Reciprocity of everyday morality - 128
ASB and immorality -134
ASB, immorality and intolerance - 141
ASB and consequences - 143
ASB, what should be, and what is - 145
Morality and parenting - 147
Summary - 152
Chapter 6 – Conclusions
Introduction - 154
Perceptions of ASB - 155
Perceptions of ASB: Everyday morality - 156
How individual context and perception related to ASB - 157
Social deprivation and ASB - 157
ASB, subjectivity and tolerance - 159
ASB and morality - 159
The Golden Rule, Kantian ethics and ASB - 161
Perceptions of everyday morality and ASB – 163
Current climate of ASB - 164
Limitations -166
Contributions to knowledge - 168
Future research directions – 170
References - 172
Appendices
Appendix A – Summary Protocol for Using IPA with Focus Group Data -207
6
Appendix B – Consent Form - 209
Appendix C – Participant Demographic Information Sheet - 210
Appendix D – Participant Debriefing Form - 211
Appendix E – Interview Schedule - 212
7
Abstract
Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) has been described as something that cannot be ignored and a
real concern for the everyday lives of people. A key issue has been the need to address public
perceptions and concerns that a rising tide of ASB is concomitant to a wider societal moral
decline. An assumed rising ASB, moral decline and a lack of respect are widespread
perceptions. ASB is also thought to have an impact on peoples quality of life. Cogent links
have been reported between levels of deprivation and those who perceive ASB as a serious
concern in their communities. What factors underpin these perceptions have previously been
examined, the aim being to introduce policy-based measures that can tackle both ASB and
the perception of ASB.
This thesis considers the everyday morality that informs public perceptions of ASB: namely
what do people believe it means to be anti-social; what is perceived as everyday morality and
how does this relate to ASB; and what role, if any, does everyday morality play in
determining the public’s perceptions of ASB. The thesis utilizes a qualitative approach
involving the use of focus groups and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Nine
focus groups were conducted in three locations in the North West of England (Skelmersdale,
Rainford and St Helens) selected according to their Indices of Multiple Deprivation score
(IMD, 2010) to represent an area of high deprivation, mixed deprivation and low deprivation.
A deductive IPA analysis revealed that public perceptions of ASB were grounded in people’s
own personal experiences of ASB (and those of friends or family). Whether an act was
perceived as immoral and anti-social was related to the consequences of the behaviour, the
context of when or why it occurred, and public preconceptions regarding their own
experiences. Public perceptions of ASB were found to be subjective, and they varied both
within and between each focus group location. ASB and everyday morality were perceived to
be linked - with everyday morality being perceived as an internal deterrent that may prohibit
one from behaving anti-socially. Further clarification is needed to confirm how deeply public
perceptions are related to everyday morality but also how this might inform approaches to
tackling ASB. It is suggested that everyday morality provides a framework to understand how
individuals navigate everyday social situations in public spaces.
8
Chapter 1.
Introduction: Anti-Social Behaviour
Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to investigate how anti-social behaviour (ASB) and everyday
morality may be linked and what evidence there is for this link. The thesis investigates public
perceptions of ASB and everyday morality. Specifically, what part does everyday morality
play in determining the public’s perceptions of ASB? The thesis draws on criminological and
philosophical conceptualizations of ASB and everyday morality. Everyday morality is
identified as an influential factor in how some people may regard ASB as immoral.
Previous political discourse and ASB interventions have often discussed ASB as being low-
level, uncivil behaviour and linked to a lack of respect and an assumed moral decline
(Coleman, 2005, Browne, 2008 Millie, 2010). This chapter aims to elucidate both how and
why ASB has been described as an issue of morality. Consideration is given to how accounts
of ASB have been perceived as both influencing and being influenced by individual
perceptions of morality. This introduction chapter starts with a discussion of the origins of the
term ASB, including consideration of definitions. The chapter goes on to examine the history
of talk about ASB. The next point is to consider what constitutes ASB and how ASB may be
tackled. The relationship between respect, deprivation and community involvement is then
addressed. Official data on ASB is considered and conclusions drawn focusing on the
relationship between ASB and everyday morality.
Chapter two examines this relationship further by discussing moral philosophy and concepts
that may elucidate the link between ASB and everyday morality. This chapter discusses
concepts including morality, respect, common morality, everyday civility, moral relativism,
individual morality, Kantian ethics and finally the link between ASB and everyday morality.
ASB is linked to morality through a discussion of perceptions and concepts regarding respect,
tolerance, social context, moral regulation and social norms. Particular reference is made to
the role of perception and why some behaviour may be perceived as immoral and anti-social
9
or not. Chapter two concludes by discussing atypical examples of ASB and the issue of
tackling the moral aspects of ASB.
Chapter three describes the relationship between ASB, moral regulation and
responsibilisation. This section of the thesis includes considered discussion of moral
regulation, in addition to the mechanisms adopted to tackle incivility and ASB. The nature of
moral regulation and how governments have tried to address concerns of behaviour is related
to political discourse, legislation and concepts such as responsibilisation. These are discussed
in terms of their utility towards tackling ASB and incivility. Other key concepts are discussed
including moral decline, respect, moral panics, social norms and the ‘law-abiding majority’.
The chapter concludes with a summary of how previous efforts at moral regulation have
focused on specific groups within society and that other behaviours which fall under the
rubric of ASB may be missed. The potential of tolerance and mutual respect to provide a
partial solution towards tackling ASB and moral concerns concludes this chapter.
Chapter four describes the methodology, starting with the rationale for the thesis including a
discussion of previous research that has utilised similar or dissimilar methods to studying
ASB and everyday morality. The locations selected and rationale underpinning the sampling,
focus group method and use of vignettes is detailed next. The sample was selected through
purposive sampling and the locations selected included Skelmersdale, Rainford and St Helens
in North West England. The English Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2010; DCLG, 2011)
was adapted to select locations based upon their level of deprivation (mixed level of
deprivation, more deprived and least deprived). Three focus groups were conducted in each
study location with a minimum of four participants and maximum of 12 (Kruegar and Casey,
2000), with a total of 52 participants. The investigation adopted Interpretive
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Callery et al., 2015) thus enabling the researcher to ‘allow
for unanticipated themes to emerge’ (Callery et al., 2015: 64). An appraisal section considers
the quality criteria for conducting qualitative research and finally a summary concludes with
the potential limitations and countermeasures adopted to overcome research barriers.
Chapter five includes a detailed analysis and discussion. It starts by detailing how IPA
revealed a diverse range of interrelated themes that captured participants’ subjective
experience of ASB and everyday morality. The core themes identified included: perceptions
of what constitutes ASB; youthful ASB; issues of understanding ASB and impacts; perceived
10
causes of ASB; moral explanations of ASB; reciprocity of everyday morality; ASB and
immorality; ASB, immorality and intolerance; and parenting and morality. A notable finding
was that participants perceived that there was a link between everyday morality and ASB.
Furthermore, this link was related to concepts such as parenting, religion and society. Chapter
five concludes with a description of the key themes. The implications of the findings and
potential ramifications for future research are discussed throughout.
In chapter 6 the conclusions of the thesis are presented on how the public perceive everyday
morality and ASB to be related. Perceptions tended to centre on everyday nuisance behaviour
and disruption in association with young people. This perception was linked to other factors
such as deprivation and poor parenting thought to influence the likelihood of young people
engaging in ASB. Another theme detailed perceived issues in the subjective understanding of
ASB and impacts. Participants revealed that what is seen as anti-social to one individual may
not be to another. The negative impacts and consequences of ASB were frequently linked to
perceptions of what ASB is. Personal experience formed an important aspect of participant
narratives in how they perceive ASB.
Morality was perceived as linked to ASB through relationships between a ‘lack of morality’,
or immorality, and the occurrence of ASB. Atypical examples of anti-social and immoral
behaviour were highlighted; for example, tax evasion or avoidance by large companies.
Perceptions of ASB and morality were further linked through participant narratives linking
the two concepts of immorality and intolerance. The study revealed that perceptions of a link,
however, were not unanimous. A further finding was that perceptions of ASB as immoral, or
moral, were subjective. When a link with morality was discussed this was often in terms of
the consequences of an anti-social act. Perceptions of a link tended to be discussed with
reference to the role of parenting. Additional perceived links included with societal, cultural
and peer-related factors. A perceived ‘lack of morality’ was further seen as a cause for ASB
on an individual level. The link between ASB and everyday morality was perceived as one of
cognition and behaviour. (Im)morality was often constructed by participants as the
premeditative stage prior to the anti-social act. Being ‘moral’ was seen as a potential
inhibitor against ASB; however, what is regarded as moral may change from individual to
individual. The limitations of this study and contributions to current knowledge are then
discussed. Key contributions include the identification of unconventional forms of ASB.
11
Examining ASB from a joint criminological and philosophical perspective enabled the
research to detail public perceptions of ASB in relation to everyday perceptions of morality,
not only whether certain acts of ASB are regarded as immoral, but also why they were
perceived as such; for example, the impact on others was used by some to measure the
‘morality’ of an act. Chapter 6 concludes with future research directions and suggests that
examining specific types of behaviour and ASB with ward level data may help address why,
in some areas of varying deprivation, the perceived underlying moral aspects of ASB may be
different. Approaches to address the moral aspects of ASB could then be tailored to each
individual location, based upon the local people’s understanding of everyday moral values.
Origins of the term ‘anti-social behaviour’
According to Pearson (2009) concern about troublesome youth has been a prominent aspect
of British society since at least the seventeenth century. In Hooligan: A History of
Respectable Fears, Pearson (1983) contended that moral panics around issues of disorderly
behaviour and incivility in British cities are not a new phenomenon. Familiar references in
the government and media precede a recycling of ‘respectable fears’ (Pearson, 1983). Pearson
(1983) suggested that responses to urban disorder frequently describe familiar stories of the
‘British way of life’ being under threat from an unruly minority. The perception that this way
of life is under threat from uncivil behaviour is recycled perpetuating the moral panic around
the behaviour of troublesome youths.
There is a perpetual view that ‘young people no longer respect the law, no longer respect
their parents and neighbours, they no longer show any obedience to authority in all its forms,
there is now a carnival of disorder in the streets of the ‘broken’ society’ (Pearson, 2009: 41,
emphasis in original). However, Kirby and Edmondson (2012) argue that ASB has become
more pervasive over recent decades. It would be challenging to validate this claim due to
consistently changing definitions and understandings of troublesome or anti-social behaviour.
This issue is compounded without having comparable historical data. Issues of ASB and
urban disorder have permeated many facets of the UK government since the mid-1990s,
attracting the attention of the media and political bodies (Flint and Powell, 2009). The term
ASB is still widely utilized today (Neary, et al., 2013).
12
According to the Home Office (2012), the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ describes the
everyday nuisances, disorderly and criminal behaviours of concern to local people, or those
behaviours that are not a priority for police forces and local authorities. According to Brown
(2013), ASB is an umbrella term for low-level nuisance behaviours, criminality and public
disorder. It has been the catalyst for continuing debate for the past two decades. The political
and legislative origins of ASB can be traced back to the Public Order Act 1986, introduced
by the Conservative Government (Millie, 2013). Whilst the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ was
not employed here, the language relating to ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ within the 1986
Act was synonymous with the later definitions of ASB employed, such as in the 1998 Crime
and Disorder Act (of more later). The Public Order Act 1986 stated that:
A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words
or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible
representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of
a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. (1986 Public Order Act
S.5(1)).
Another attempt to define ASB arose from the Chartered Institute of Housing (1995: 4) who
claimed that ASB is: ‘Behaviour that unreasonably interferes with other people’s rights to the
use and enjoyment of their home and community’. According to Millie (2009) this
highlighted the link between ASB and housing discourse. There has been a considerable
amount of literature investigating ASB and housing (Burney, 2002; Brown, 2004; Carr and
Cowan, 2006 Flint 2006; Squires 2006) and it has been at the forefront of efforts to tackle
ASB (Flint and Powell, 2009). Later, ASB became a key feature of the Conservatives’ 1996
Housing Act which gave the power to apply for an injunction against certain behaviours. For
example, verbal or physical abuse, criminal damage and the threat of violence could be
grounds for an injunction (without notice). This extended to noise, animal or vehicle related
nuisance behaviour. If injunctions were breached, applicants could apply to attach a power of
arrest for breaching an injunction. Among those who could apply for these injunctions were
local housing authorities, social landlords, housing actions trusts or charitable housing trusts
who may be acting as landlords of premises. According to the 1996 Housing Act (s.152) a
person is guilty of ASB if she or he is:
13
(a) engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a
nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging
in a lawful activity in residential premises to which this section applies or in
the locality of such premises (b) using or threatening to use residential
premises to which this section applies for immoral or illegal purposes, or (c)
entering residential premises to which this section applies or being found in
the locality of any such premises.
The focus of ASB lay squarely on tenants of social landlords. The private rented section of
the 1996 Act contains no reference to the behaviour of tenants, anti-social or otherwise (Carr
et al., 2007). Two years later the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, as introduced by New
Labour, also attempted to define ASB. According to the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act
(section 1(a-b)) ASB was:
… that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an anti-social
manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household as himself; and that such an order is necessary to protect relevant
persons from further anti-social acts by him.
The Crime and Disorder Act was New Labour’s first piece of legislation and introduced the
Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (Hewitt, 2007). However, the origins of the ASBO are
earlier than this (Hewitt, 2007; Millie, 2009), with an early incarnation contained within a
consultation paper entitled ‘A Quiet Life: tough action on criminal behaviours’ (Labour
Party, 1995). In this document it was claimed that ‘plenty of those guilty of ASB are private
tenants or owner occupiers’ (Labour Party, 1995:7). It also presented plans for the
‘Community Safety Order’ that laid the foundation for the emergent ASBO. Millie (2009)
claimed that, despite ASB not being defined in this document to an adequate standard, there
were elements pertaining to neighbour disputes and people’s right to having a ‘quiet life’ that
would manifest in later legislation regarding ASB.
The emphasis was on controlling offenders of low-level crime and ASB and these were
assumed to be mainly within areas of social housing (Cleland and Tisdall, 2005). Discussions
were also ongoing in the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee (1996, as cited in
14
Wigzell, 2014) that, rightly or wrongly, focused on ASB within the housing context. Despite
being initially mentioned by the Conservative government (1996), the Labour Party adapted
ASB as its own agenda and took a pledge to combat ASB which became a core focus of their
election campaign in 1997. When New Labour came to power in 1997 Tony Blair
emphasised the role of the individual in society and community. The underpinning ideology
of New Labour highlighted that respect for oneself as well as others was key to society; the
rights and responsibilities of all were central elements of policy under the New Labour
government (Millie, 2009). Blair drew from exponents such as Amitai Etzioni (1993) who
advocated a communitarian approach:
A Communitarian perspective recognises that the preservation of individual
liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society
where the citizens learn respect for each other as well as self-respect … (p.
253)
The influence of Etzioni (1993) on New Labour policy was exemplified by New Labour’s
approach to tackling ASB making the perpetrators more respectful by introducing civilising
offensives (Flint and Powell, 2009) to censure behaviour. The threat was to make those who
behave anti-socially more respectful and more civilised. Although definitions of respect and
civilised behaviour are based upon what the ‘law-abiding majority’ desire (Millie, 2009). The
aim was for the New Labour government to take an active role in promoting civility and good
behaviour in society. Thus began the Blairite crusade to morally and culturally reform
behaviour in Britain to tackle the lack of respect, moral decline and ASB.
According to Labour MP Frank Field (2003) ASB was the core contemporary social issue of
the political battleground in the UK. The term ‘anti-social behaviour’ becomes more widely
utilized, particularly by the media. According to Waiton (2005: 23, as cited in Millie, 2009):
The catch all term ‘antisocial behaviour’ has today become so widely used it
seems strange to find it was rarely used [in the media] until the 1990s. In the
1980s a couple of articles a year were printed in the UK discussing antisocial
behaviour, whereas in January 2004 alone, there were over 1000 such
articles…
15
The suggestion here is that ASB is a broad term applied to a broad spectrum of people. A key
point here is that the usage of the term ‘ASB’ appeared to increase through the 1990s and
early 2000s. Similarly, according to Wigzell (2014) the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ was
barely used or hardly recognized before the 1990s. Wigzell (2014) uses the metaphor of an
arms race to describe the development of ASB in the political world as parties duelled to win
votes and appear tougher than each other. Subsequently, multifarious laws and policies
emerged to tackle ASB (Wigzell, 2014) as this was the priority issue for criminal justice
legislation (MacDonald, 2002; McCarthy, 2011).
The 1998 Act suggested that ASB must take the form of action or speech, that results in a
person or group of people (most likely not in the perpetrators family) feeling distress (Neary
et al, 2013). A straightforward way to define ASB might be to look at what kinds of actions
or speech are considered anti-social. Such an approach, however, is likely to result in an
unwieldy list. A study conducted in three areas of the West Midlands (Berry, 2003) examined
police records to see what behaviours had been classified as ASB. Thirty-two different
offences had been classified as ASB, but only one of these offences (noise nuisance) was
consistently classified as ASB across the three areas. If a relatively small area of the UK has
such variability in what offences are classified as ASB, then the number of offences that
could potentially be regarded as ASB across the country could be even bigger. Similarly,
Ramsay (2004) suggested that the definition of ASB is intolerably vague and too generalized
to account for contextual variation.
Ironically (given its name), it seems that defining ASB through behaviour alone may not be
appropriate or sufficient. According to Brunger (2008: 13) ‘…the notion of anti-social
behaviour is never clearly pinned down to one kind of behaviour’. The New Labour
Government responsible for the 1998 Act recognised the difficulty in pinning ASB down. For
instance, according to Alun Michael MP, ASB was ‘easier to recognise than to define’ (cited
in Millie, 2009: 1). Some examples of ASB included: vandalism, graffiti, threatening
behaviour in large groups and joyriding (Home Office, 2002, cited in Prior and Paris, 2005).
Some of these behaviours could be regarded as criminal acts in their own right (such as
joyriding), but it is not always clear at what point such behaviours are anti-social and when
they are criminal (Prior and Paris, 2005).
16
In a similar vein of thought, Morgado and Vale-Dias (2013) claimed that there was a general
assumption regarding the meaning of ASB that violates social rules which are meant to
promote respect and consideration, particularly towards other peoples’ life and property (Burt
et al., 2011). Morgado and Vale-Dias (2013) further contended that such general assumptions
and definitional issues are the basis for a belief that ASB is a socially-determined construct
with multifarious subtypes. They then suggested that ASB contains different levels of
destructiveness, forms, functions, consequence, onsets and pathways. Despite the multitude
of examples of ASB, the identification and consideration of ASB is still curbed by the high
level of uncertainty about what this is (Morgado and Vale-Dias, 2013). They concluded that
ASB is a complex concept and the heterogeneous nature of what constitutes ASB needs
further research.
In 2014 the Conservative-led Coalition defined ASB as a:
…broad term used to describe the day-to-day incidents of crime, nuisance and
disorder that make many people’s lives a misery – from litter and vandalism,
to public drunkenness or aggressive dogs, to noisy or abusive neighbours.
(Home Office, 2014: 1)
The most recent definition of ASB is found in the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Act:
... “anti-social behaviour” means (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to
cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, (b) conduct capable of
causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s
occupation of residential premises, or (c) conduct capable of causing housing-
related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
According to this definition, ASB has broad parameters. Behaviours that are liable to cause
‘harassment, alarm or distress to any person’ or even ‘nuisance or annoyance’ may be
labelled as anti-social. The suggestion is that behaviours that cause people to feel these
emotions are likely to fall under the rubric of ASB.
17
The lack of a single agreed upon definition of ASB makes collection of statistics regarding its
prevalence difficult (Payne, 2003). Whether a behaviour is deemed anti-social or not does not
seem to be determined by its level of criminality, but rather the extent to which it matches the
behavioural expectations and norms of a time and place (Millie, 2008) and the level of
‘nuisance’ it causes (Brown, 2004: 204). Thus, behaviour can be labelled as anti-social just
because there is the perception it may cause offence, regardless of whether it does so (Millie,
2008). Expectations tend to be set by one group to the exclusion of others.
Definitional concerns have been conveyed by a plethora of research emphasizing the lack of
clarity (MacDonald, 2002; Samuels; 2005; Ramsay, 2004; Millie, 2008; Hodgkinson and
Tilley, 2011). For instance, the definition of ASB in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act was
described as a ‘catch all’ (Hodgkinson and Tilley (2011) encompassing anything from
littering or dog fouling to assault and street prostitution. There has been a blurring of
boundaries between behaviour that can be considered simply a nuisance and behaviour that is
criminal, an issue related to the elasticity of the definition (Macdonald, 2002; Millie, 2009).
This can be problematic when local authorities and the police must distinguish between these
behaviours (Brown, 2004). It is something that must be seen to be defined, but definitions
vary depending on who is doing the seeing.
Thus, earlier notions of nuisance behaviours have been construed as anti-social (broadly
defined) or just a general nuisance to society. During the 1990s, housing legislation was
directed at tackling ASB within areas of social housing, and finally the 1998 Crime and
Disorder Act gave the first widely used definition of ASB. Understandings of what ASB is
have changed and continue to change, most recently with the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Act, as introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. The
recent 2014 definition conveyed ASB as being typically a daily type of nuisance behaviour,
involving low level criminality and disorderly conduct that negatively affects the lives of
others.
History of talk about anti-social behaviour
According to Crawford and Flint (2009) from 1999 to 2009 there was an unprecedented
increase in the amount of legislative activity aimed at regulating behaviour and ameliorating
ASB. This included multifarious legal tools, powers and initiatives to tackle ASB (Crawford
18
and Flint, 2009). Similarly, Moran (2003, as cited in Crawford and Flint, 2009) claimed there
has been a long-term proliferation in policy, - or a ‘hyper-politicisation’ - introducing tools
attempting to counteract ASB. History of talk about ASB has centred on a widespread
political belief that ASB is increasing. Hodgkinson and Tilley (2011) claimed that the
prevalence of ASB as a recurring theme on the political agenda was due to the high levels of
political attentiveness and coverage by the media. Flint and Nixon (2006) argued, in a similar
vein, that the notion of increasing levels of ASB has made measures to tackle those behaving
anti-socially of paramount importance. It has been further contended that the term ‘anti-social
behaviour’ has transcended from a political buzzword into everyday vernacular. The political
focus on ASB has even been described by Tony Blair as a ‘crusade’ (2004, as cited in
Squires, 2006).
In political rhetoric, ASB has also been linked with immorality, and the presence of ASB is
regarded by some, particularly within the government and media, of evidence of a moral
decline in society (Millie, 2010). Opponents to this view argue that the ‘moral panic’
generated by official narratives is nothing more than an attempt to cover-up more serious
causes of ASB (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994). In this way, ASBOs and other similar
measures may have been self-defeating, since they do not tackle the root causes of ASB, nor
provide the support needed to address it (Squires and Stephen, 2005). Another concern was
that many people who had been issued with ASBOs had mental health needs or learning
disabilities (Brown, 2004), and it is unlikely that an ASBO would have been effective in
reducing the undesired behaviour. It seems then, that the primary function of ASBOs was to
censure a certain repertoire of behaviours, deemed inappropriate by some, whilst legitimising
other behaviours, such as penalising vulnerable members of society.
It is easy to forget that ASB, before the advent of New Labour, was largely treated by the
police as a nuisance, unless it was also deemed to be criminal (Forrest and Tilley, 2005a;
Forrest et al. 2005b). As already noted, New Labour prioritized ASB in the run up to the
general election in 1997. They highlighted the damage done to some neighbourhoods by
chronic, inconsiderate behaviour. Drawing on policy and literature from the USA, they
focused on more deprived areas where such persistent ASB was thought to facilitate ‘spirals
of decline’, hindered attempts at neighbourhood renewal, and led to tolerance of local crime
(e.g. Skogan, 1990). The notion of ASB facilitating ‘spirals of decline’ was earlier discussed
19
as ‘social disorder’ by Wilson and Kelling and became known as the ‘Broken Windows’
theory (Wilson and Kelling,1982).
This approach entailed compiling a list of behaviours, for example public urination,
prostitution, loitering etc., and a list of physical symptoms of decay which needed to be
addressed to prevent the incubation of more extreme crime or ASB. Wilson and Kelling
suggested that disorder undermines the ability of neighbours to protect themselves, those who
are able will move away, whilst those who remain will withdraw from their community’s
public life and usage of community spaces. Wilson and Kelling (1982) further claimed that
the criminogenic impacts of social disorder originate from a decline of informal social
control. This creates opportunities for crime in undefended areas. This generates disorderly
behaviours that precede the later onset of serious crime. ‘Broken Windows’ theory links
directly observable, physical conditions of a neighbourhood influence to the way individuals
respond to it (Michener, 2013). Those who support this theory argue that minor, but visible,
signs of physical dilapidation lead to criminal violations (Kelling and Coles, 1996). This
fuelled discussion on whether ‘Broken Windows’ could inform policies on crime and
punishment and, if it could, should it be used to do so (Skogan, 2008; Harcourt and Ludwig,
2006). The main contention was that targeting low-level disorderly or nuisance behaviour is
the key to reducing longer term serious, violent crime. The suggestion that physical cues of
dilapidation lead to more serious crimes has been supported more recently (Keizer et al.,
2011). Conversely, other recent research by Wicherts and Bakker (2014) tested this
proposition, reporting that behaviours such as graffiti, litter and environmental cues do not
precipitate the proliferation of norm-violating behaviours. Wicherts and Bakker (2014)
further contended that recent evidence supporting this particular assumption of ‘Broken
Windows’ is methodologically flawed due to confounding variables, observer bias and
statistical weakness. Critiques of ‘Broken Windows’ such as these suggest caution when
applying ‘Broken Windows’ theory to policing and policy to tackle crime and ASB. Yet,
New Labour was attracted to Broken Windows theory.
Matthews (2003) further criticized ‘Broken Windows’, reporting that the process actually
occurs in reverse. Neighbourhood decline is a consequence of declining industry, investment
and employment opportunities. These factors precede the undermining of families and a
breakdown in community structures. This then leads to criminal and uncivil behaviours,
rather than criminal and uncivil behaviours causing the neighbourhood decline (Matthews,
20
2003). Instead of getting tough and imposing ever more punitive sanctions through
legislation, efforts might be better directed at stabilizing and regenerating neighbourhoods in
decline - a fact recognized by the Social Exclusion Unit (2000, as cited in Millie, 2008) who
claimed that those who fall victim to ASB and criminal sanctions are actually the victims of
structural processes.
The punitive philosophy adopted by New Labour legislation reflected the political thinking
that was at work to tackle ASB (Payne, 2003). According to Payne (2003), there are many
factors that underlie the penal approach of the UK government. First is the over-reliance of
disciplinary sanctions against ASB, second is the identification of individual accountability
rather than looking at the broader scope of ASB. Third is the narrow focus of looking only at
the behaviour based on consequences of the action rather than looking at the causal factors.
ASB has historically been portrayed as occurring within disadvantaged areas and as best
counteracted through tough sanctions. However, this was not effectively tackling the complex
aetiology of ASB (Matthews, 2003; Payne, 2003).
Political discourse on ASB
Contemporary political talk of ASB has related to the ideology of developing a ‘Big Society’
(Conservatives, 2010). The ‘Big Society’ involves ‘redistributing power from the state to
society; from the centre to local communities; giving people the opportunity to take more
control over their lives’ (Conservative Party Manifesto, 2010: 39). According to Donoghue
(2012) the Big Society aims to produce social entrepreneurship and active citizenship as part
of an urban renewal, particularly in areas such as crime control and developing community
cohesion. This is to be achieved through the promotion of community engagement aimed to
develop a strong relationship between citizens, communities and crime agencies (Home
Office, 2010).
In this context, discussion by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary was of a ‘new
approach’ to tackle ASB (Home Office, 2010). The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
in 2010 closed the curtain on 13 years of New Labour government within the UK. With this
came the demise of the punitive flagship policy, the ASBO (Hughes, 2011). Further points
made in Theresa May’s speech ‘Moving Beyond the ASBO’ (Home Office, 2010) comprised
of criticizing the ‘top-down’, ‘bureaucratic’, ‘centralised’ and ‘gimmick-laden’ methods
applied by New Labour to tackle ASB. Ultimately, she signalled the dismissal of previous
21
strategies to tackle ASB, instead claiming that different approaches were needed which
would be ‘rehabilitating and restorative rather than criminalizing and coercive’ (Home
Office, 2010: 1). A consultation paper entitled ‘More Effective Responses to Anti-Social
Behaviour’ (Home Office, 2011) advocated an approach that was less centralised and more
local. There was to be more emphasis on the powers of frontline professionals in terms of
increasing local accountability. This aimed to reduce the bureaucracy, because at the most
fundamental level ASB was believed to be a local problem (Home Office, 2011).
This consultation paper proposed that ASB should have two fresh legal instruments to tackle
ASB instead of ASBOs, namely the ‘Crime Prevention Injunction’ (CPI) and the ‘Criminal
Behaviour Order’ (CBO), but these would also include positive requirements to be met
(Hughes, 2011). The CPI was to be a civil order with a civil burden of proof that made it
easier to obtain (Home Office, 2011). A civil burden of proof meant that the injunction could
be obtained quicker and easier based upon the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all
reasonable doubt (Home Office, 2014). A CBO was a civil preventative order that could be
joined with a conviction. This was aimed at protecting the public from behaviour that causes
or is liable to cause distress, alarm or harassment (Home Office, 2011). A court could ban the
individual from locations or activities and further require the offender to participate in
positive activities to address the underpinning reasons for their offending. There was a range
of civil sanctions for breaching the prohibitions attached to the CPI. For adults, a breach of
this would be punished as contempt of court with potential custody or fines. For under
eighteen year olds, sanctions for breaching the CPI included curfews, supervision, detention
or activity requirements.
The CPI was later rebranded as the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA).
The IPNA is a civil order to be used against those aged 10 or over (Anti-Social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Act, 2014). The IPNA can be granted if a court is satisfied that an
individual has, on the balance of probabilities, ‘engaged or threatens to engage in conduct
capable of causing nuisance and annoyance’ (Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill,
2014: S.1 (2)). There are also the Community Protection Notice, Community Protection
Order (Public Space) and Community Protection Order (Closure). The Act also introduced
the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
22
Those issued with a CBO or an IPNA may have to attend a programme such as anger
management or other locally provided public services (Hughes, 2011). Despite this, Hughes
(2011) has claimed it is dubious as to how much would differ from ASBOs. In fact, it may
have made little difference to recipients or even the communities they are meant to protect.
Hughes went further, contending that the critics of ASBOs would not be appeased by these
new tools. The only real change is that justifying a civil standard of proof is easier, thus
making applications faster, cheaper and more liable to succeed. Even more pressing, Millie
(2010: 9) considered the Conservative manifesto (Conservatives, 2010) and claimed that the
rhetoric appeared ‘all too familiar’. Millie (2010: 9), drew on a speech by the Home Secretary
Theresa May (Home Office, 2010), in which she stated ‘I believe it is time for us to stop
tolerating anti-social behaviour’, suggesting that much of the rhetoric remained the same.
Indeed, the new package of measures appeared to exhibit ‘rebranding’ rather than a fresh
approach, which will probably yield similar results to the ASBO (Hodgkinson and Tilley,
2011).
Despite much similarity, it was acknowledged by Bannister and Kearns (2012) that it was too
early to judge the coalition government’s approach to tackling ASB. However, it is entirely
plausible to propose that this approach shared similar qualitative features, such as intolerance
and reassurance, with New Labour’s approach. Three years later, research reported that the
new government’s approach still retained focal elements pertaining to the previous New
Labour regime (Flint, 2014). Flint (2014) stated that the key components kept were: intense
family projects, sanctions, non-negotiable support and Parenting Orders in addition to the
belief that sanctions are an effective deterrent. Even more specifically, Flint claimed that the
new powers introduced by the 2014 Act simply broadened the range of behaviours that could
be described as ‘anti-social’. Further criticisms related to the lowering of thresholds and
lower burdens of proof required for the use of legal tools like the IPNA and CBO. A lower
civil burden of proof, with lesser requirements, meant that ‘potentially lengthy and expensive
criminal proceedings can be bypassed’ (Millie, 2014: 382). This could provide flexibility in
the application of powers. According to the Home Office (2014) the standard of proof for
CBOs required that the court was:
…satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender has engaged in
behaviour that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
23
any person; and… The court considers that making the order will help prevent
the offender from engaging in such behaviour. (Home Office, 2014)
There was also no requirement to prove necessity, unlike for the ASBO (Home Office, 2014).
More recent research has noted further issues with these new powers. Eastwood (2015)
reported that the introduction of new legal powers tended to inaugurate the more aggressive
use of these tools against perpetrators. This could be problematic, as Eastwood contends that
the new measures introduced have a broader spectrum of activities covered than the previous
legislation. Eastwood (2015) also noted that in some situations the new legislation
empowered the authorities to use some of these powers without a court order, as is the case
with the ‘Community Protection Notice’ (CPN). As noted, these notices are easier to obtain
due to their lower burden of proof. Eastwood (2015) concluded that the new ASB powers,
similar to their predecessors, would further enhance the vulnerability and exclusion of those
members of society who are subjected to punitive measures that fail to treat the cause, rather
than symptom, of ASB. For example, Eastwood cited some of the factors that contribute to
ASB as housing, mental health problems, poverty and substance misuse, none of which are
fully addressed by the new legislation.
Perceptions and tolerance of ASB
The definitions of ASB used by politicians have tended to be heavily based on perceptions of
behaviour (Mackenzie et al., 2010) rather than the actual behaviour itself. This was reflected
in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act that viewed the behaviour from the perspective of the
`victims` of the behaviour (Cogan, 2006). This stance is not uncommon amongst definitions
of ASB. Squires (2008: 368) captures this when he says ‘anti-social behaviour is
emphatically about perceptions, relationships, and interactions and contexts. It is important
for what it signals’. Thus, it seems that behaviour cannot be considered anti-social in
isolation, it must be considered in the context in which it arises, and from the viewpoint of
those perceiving the behaviour.
According to Heap (2009: 72) ‘the most common method of assessing the extent of problems
caused by ASB is through the collection and analysis of public perception data.’ Heap noted
that this information can give an indication as to the types of problems which are causing
public concern and that are impacting negatively on communities (Harradine et al., 2004).
24
However, a number of definitional and measurement issues need to be addressed before
examining what affects such perceptions. Wood (2004) reports that this is due to the means
through which ASB is both counted and reported. For example, there could be multiple
reports regarding a single incident, especially if this incident impacted upon multiple people
within the same area. Heap (2009) further purported this is further complicated by tolerance
of behaviours. What is ASB to one may not be to another. Thus, some people may tolerate
certain forms of minor ASB, whereas others may not, leading to further discrepancies in what
is, and what is not reported.
According to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the subjectivity of ASB is what
enables it to be governed by factors such as context, location, quality of life expectations and
community tolerance (ODPM, 2003). A definition with a wide scope can be a positive
mechanism (Heap, 2010) as it accounts for the consequences that multifarious types of ASB
have on quality of life. Conversely, such a wide-ranging definition can simultaneously
produce harmful consequences. Card and Ward, (1998: 108) note that ASB:
…is open to objection on the basis that it will catch conduct which is
unorthodox or unusual, eccentric or bizarre, but which, nevertheless is conduct
which ought not to be the subject of the legal process (Card and Ward,
1998:108).
It is possible that the definition of ASB could impinge upon the behaviour of otherwise ‘law-
abiding citizens’ if their behaviour is perceived to be ‘unconventional’ within a certain
context (Heap 2009). ASB can be influenced by factors such as our own level of tolerance
and behavioural expectations within differing contexts (Millie, 2008; Heap, 2010). Heap
(2010) pointed to the fact that individual incidents of ASB are dealt with on a case by case
basis and issues of subjectivity and tolerance have a different impact in different areas in
relation to the movement of people, a clashing of cultures and varying levels of tolerance.
Heap (2010: 48) purported that, ‘…thresholds of tolerance also determine what behaviours
are deemed anti-social, particularly in relation to the context in which the behaviour is
experienced.’ In a similar vein, Bannister and Kearns (2009) proposed that the setting is
important when considering the effect of tolerance on ASB perceptions:
25
…the socio-spatial situation in which we find ourselves both influences our
predisposition towards tolerance and determines a set of other drivers of the
tolerant response, so that our thresholds of tolerance are spatially specific and
spatially variant (p.182).
For example, some behaviour tolerated in an urban context may not be tolerated in a
suburban neighbourhood, or rural setting (Millie, 2006; 2016; Heap, 2010). According to
Bannister and Kearns (2009), the regulation of behaviours perceived as ‘inappropriate’ can
precipitate a cycle of intolerance. They noted that such attempts are counterproductive;
instead such methods further segregate others through highlighting social differences.
Furthermore, this can convey those social differences as being unacceptable and thus promote
intolerance rather than tolerance. Bannister and Kearns (2009) concluded that a paradox is
created whereby the values of some are prioritised over the values of others, and that ‘a
message of mutual tolerance’ is not conveyed (Bannister and Kearns, 2009: 174). Crawford
(2008: 758) lists ‘location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations’ as potential
influences on whether a behaviour is perceived as anti-social, and Payne (2003: 321) suggests
‘frequency, intensity, duration and whether or not it is considered appropriate, normal or
reasonable behaviour among a particular age group’.
A possible reason for increased attention on ASB may be the decreasing tolerance for
behaviours that might previously have been tolerated or even ignored (Berry, 2003). This
lack of tolerance could be the result of economic changes, and/or social cohesion in
neighbourhoods, which lead to greater mistrust and consequently an increased likelihood of
ambiguous or different behaviour being regarded as threatening (Burney, 2002; Sampson,
2009; Wilström, 2009, cited in Neary et al, 2013). It may be precisely because of the impact
of context that legislation pertaining to ASB (such as the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act) is
left open to interpretation. For example, spitting, associating with friends and family,
travelling on buses in a specific area, going into shops, attempting suicide, not keeping pigs
under control, being sarcastic, being on the street, and political protesting have all been
prohibited through use of these powers (Macdonald, 2006; Fyson and Yates, 2011). Despite
this flexibility, it has been argued that the elasticity of this definition of ASB only stretches
one way with measures vigorously utilized against marginalized groups - but less vehemently
utilized, if at all, against commercial conglomerates who flout planning laws or companies
that cause pollution (Sim, 2009) - both actions that could be conceived as anti-social.
26
If perceptions are important, then the question is whose view is more valid, the person
engaging in the behaviour or the person perceiving it as ASB? On the Home Office website
(2007, cited in Prior, 2009: 9) ASB was defined as ‘…any action that impacts on other people
in a negative way’. But where is the line drawn? For example, a classical music fan living
next to a professional violinist may positively encourage her neighbour to play music loudly
at any time of day, whilst she might consider the playing of club music by her other
neighbour negatively, and therefore define the latter as ASB. In this sense, the behaviour
displayed by each of the neighbours is the same: playing music loudly, but the impact comes
down to a matter of personal taste. Furthermore, her attempts to censure the neighbour who
enjoys playing club music would impact on the neighbour in a negative way (not being
permitted to engage in an activity that brings them pleasure), so is the classical music fan,
actually, the anti-social one? Of course, not all behaviour currently regarded as anti-social
should simply be tolerated, especially when the behaviour also includes serious criminal
offences (Mackenzie et al, 2010); but it is important to consider to what extent certain
behaviours should or could be tolerated.
The assumption that a behaviour, and therefore a person, can be classified as anti-social based
on the perception of others is likely to result in reduced acceptance of difference (Bannister,
2009) with people’s behaviours censured more and more to fit a norm. There is some
evidence that the term `anti-social behaviour` has been used to construct and reinforce social
behavioural norms. For instance, the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH, 1995, cited in
Scott and Parker, 1998: 3) defined ASB as ‘…behaviour that opposes society’s norms and
accepted standards of behaviour.’ Definitions such as this assume that there is just one set of
accepted and agreed upon norms within society, and that everybody wants to live by these
norms (Scott and Parker, 1998). Indeed, the concept of ASB itself has the function of
favouring some forms of behaviour over others – it explicitly states that only particular
behaviours are welcome in society. It is therefore vitally important that there is inclusive
dialogue over what is and is not regarded as acceptable behaviour across geographical and
political boundaries. This will ensure that there is not one view on how people should behave
in society that is accepted above others.
By trying to keep behaviour to those actions or speech that negatively impact on any member
of a community, it is inevitable that an increasingly narrower range of behaviours will come
to be seen as `acceptable`. An alternative argument would be that actual intolerance of the
27
behaviour of others is itself anti-social. Rather than seeking to classify certain behaviours as
anti-social, society should be encouraged to analyse behaviours and responses to these
behaviours from a range of perspectives. Mackenzie et al, (2010) define this as `social
connectedness`. Arguments such as these validate attempts to define ASB more precisely, as
the consequences of measures to tackle ASB, such as ASBOs and more recent IPNAs, can
have serious and limiting effects on those whose behaviour has been deemed anti-social
(Millie et al, 2005).
It is important to remember that a key reason for introducing ASBOs was to allow a case to
be made against individuals whose actions would not have been sufficient to encounter the
full force of the criminal law (Millie, 2007). ASBOs gave police and communities the power
to criminalise behaviour where, although the individual’s actions may not be themselves
criminal, the length and breadth of them could be problematic: that is, ASBOs were used in
cases ‘where the overall impact of behaviour is far greater than the sum of its parts’
(Macdonald, 2006: 188). Thus, ASBOs resulted in people receiving punishments for
behaviours that would not be sufficient on its own to warrant the full force of the law, and
where decisions about whether the behaviours are anti-social or not were based on the
perceptions of that behaviour by other people.
Who are perceived as ASB perpetrators?
Another outcome of the impact perception can have on classification is the notion that ASB
can occur everywhere and anywhere (Mathews, 2003). In reality, however, there appear to be
certain groups living in certain geographies more likely to be perceived as responsible for, or
affected by, ASB by others. Therefore, when examining what ASB is, it seems pertinent to
consider who is being anti-social and who the victims are. There is a tendency to link ASB
with particular groups in society and, as noted, one such group is young people. For instance,
Brunger (2008) observes that in discussions on ASB in Northern Ireland, young people are
routinely identified as the key perpetrators and the group most in need of regulation. It is not
clear whether this is because young people are more likely to engage in ASB or because their
behaviour is more likely to be perceived as anti-social (Millie, 2010). Linking ASB with
particular groups can be stigmatising, which in turn may make it more likely that the
behaviour from that group will be regarded as anti-social (Neary et al, 2013). This argument
is supported by findings that adults in the UK are particularly concerned about young people
`hanging around` in their local area (Walker et al, 2009). This attitude is problematic as any
28
behaviour can have a number of different interpretations, and it is likely the more positive
ones – such as socialising, and spending time with friends - will be superseded by negative
views, essentially criminalising a legitimate activity (Waiton, 2008; Deucher, 2010, cited in
Neary et al, 2013). Legislation such as the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act allowed courts to
require a child to stop particular behaviours, behaviours that were not previously censored
(Tisdall, 2006). There is a risk that young people engaging in seemingly innocent activities
will increasingly be legislated against purely because there is the perception that they are
likely to be behaving anti-socially.
This suggestion has been reinforced by research that advocates an intergenerational approach
to tackle ASB (Moore and Statham, 2006). Moore and Statham (2006) recognized that acts
classed as anti-social, such as youths ‘hanging around’, or what they termed ‘youth specific
acts’, could attract reports biased against a younger demographic. They acknowledged the
social construction of ASB, that whilst young people in a group may appear intimidating to
members of the public, gathering in a group is not necessarily an anti-social activity.
Wood (2004) examined the relationship between such perceptions of ASB and reported
incidents. According to Wood, what ASB is can be determined by geographical location and
social background. Yet the majority of respondents in his study did not report ASB to the
police. Wood concluded that this may be due to a belief that contacting the police would not
achieve anything or that there was ambivalence about where these ‘anti-social acts or
behaviours’ stood in relation to legislation and social norms.
In conclusion, what is perceived as anti-social is entirely subjective (Brown, 2004). There is
no perfectly lucid legal definition of which behaviours are anti-social with boundaries
between ASB and criminality often blurred. This creates issues for those on the frontline
tackling ASB, as it is up to personal discretion for those utilising legal tools to combat
behaviour perceived to be anti-social. ASB is most likely to be defined in terms of how the
behaviour is interpreted by people other than the perpetrator. As Brown (2004: 206) has
contended, ‘anti-social behaviour is purely about behaviour’ and is a ‘triumph of
behaviourism’, but is all about others’ perceptions of behaviour rather than the underlying
motivations. However, aiming to tackle the underlying perceptions about what ASB is and
promoting tolerance may provide a fresh solution to tackling ASB.
29
Alternatives methods for tackling ASB
Broadly speaking, there are two key approaches to tackling ASB. These are: tackling the
ASB directly through punishment/attempted change in the perpetrator, or tackling the ASB
through changing how the behaviour itself is perceived. Since the New Labour government of
the late nineties, governments in the UK have very much adopted the first approach in their
attempts to reduce ASB. More specifically, there has been an emphasis on ASB as a moral
wrong to be punished and that perpetrators require moral improvement. Tony Blair, for
example, emphasised theories of moral decline in explaining the root cause of ASB (Etzioni,
1993, as cited in McLaughlin et al, 2001), and argued that the way to tackle ASB was through
raising moral standards. In January 2006, the New Labour government launched the Respect
Action Plan (Respect Task Force, 2006; Bannister et al., 2006; Millie, 2009). This document
outlined an extensive and wide-ranging set of strategies designed to confront and, ideally, to
eradicate ASB. These strategies included legislative reform, policing initiatives, parenting
programmes, schooling initiatives and youth activities. The Respect Action Plan aimed,
through its constituent parts, to ‘enforce a modern culture of respect’ (2006: 3). Respect is
briefly and loosely defined as ‘an expression of something that people intuitively
understand’, comprising ‘values that almost everyone in this country shares’, ‘which the
majority of people want’ and that ‘relies on a shared understanding and clear rules and is
strengthened by people acting together to tackle problems and improve their lives’ (Respect
Task Force, 2006: 5). ASB is described as ‘the most visible sign of disrespect’ and portrayed
as impacting upon the majority, whilst associated with the activities and behaviour of a
minority. The notion of instilling society with a stronger sense of cultural respect was one
step further than simply punishing ASB and took ASB policy into the realm of moral
philosophy. However, the actions taken to achieve this respect were, once again, portrayed as
something to be enforced to combat moral decline (Millie, 2010). It was contended that the
restoration of law and order could be attained via remoralising families to self-regulate their
behaviour and by building cohesive communities. Crime and ASB were deemed morally
wrong, and the New Labour government was to take a no-nonsense approach to tackling
them (McLaughlin et al., 2001).
It was claimed that, in order to tackle ASB, a 'cultural shift' back towards a more traditional,
respectful 'British society' (Blair, 2005, cited in Flint and Nixon, 2006) was needed. It was
proposed that this could be achieved by actively promoting those values which were believed
30
could reduce ASB, such as being polite, considerate and thoughtful (Field, 2003, cited in
Flint and Nixon, 2006). Whilst New Labour placed much emphasis on developing respect
within society, it was less clear if, or how, one would go about doing such a thing (Millie,
2010). The subsequent Conservative–led coalition government carried on with this view of
ASB through its emphasis on the 'broken society' (Millie, 2010) that needed to be fixed
through the notion of 'big society'. The big society perpetuated the view that tackling ASB
requires an emphasis on working together to reduce unwanted behaviours.
Thus, ASB is situated within the individual or groups performing the behaviour, and
perpetrators of ASB are not acting in a way that is 'British' or morally right. Given such a
view, it is logical that attempts to tackle ASB involve trying to 'eliminate' that behaviour at
the individual level (e.g. through the use of ASBOs or their replacement) and the societal
level (e.g. through civic education). The message sent out by this approach is clear: only
certain types of behaviour are acceptable within a ‘respectful’ or `big society` and people
performing unacceptable behaviours will be punished. Indeed, the initial introduction of
ASBOs was the result of the belief that 'something had gone fundamentally wrong with
British society' (Millie, 2010: 8) which had led to the perceived increase in ASB; and that the
only way to tackle that was to try to make everyone conform to society's behavioural norms
and standards.
A second, less mainstream approach to tackling ASB takes an opposing view. It is different
in two key ways. Firstly, it advocates tolerance as a key strategy in reducing ASB. Secondly,
it does not attempt to put standards on people's behaviour. Sandercock (2003, cited in Millie,
2010), for example, suggests that it would be helpful to adopt a stance of 'togetherness is
difference', an approach she terms `cosmopolitan urbanism.` This means that it would
become accepted and even expected that behaviour different to one's own, or society's norms,
will exist, but that this is not necessarily a negative thing. Rather, it is a consequence of large
numbers of people living alongside each other. This is echoed by Mackenzie et al. (2010)
who promote the idea of 'social connectedness'. They argue that ASB could be reduced
through increased attempts to view people's behaviour from other points of view. The
rationale for this approach is that consideration of other people’s perspectives will lead to
greater understanding within and between groups and communities (Millie, 2010). This
would, in turn, mean that people are better equipped to judge the behaviour of others as social
31
or anti-social (Mackenzie et al. 2010). This is especially important when you consider the
role perception plays in government adopted definitions of ASB.
This notion of tolerance is often linked to acceptance and respect of others (Sennett, 2003). In
a similar vein, Millie (2010: 10) suggests that one way of reducing ASB is to accept that, for
example, ‘...not all youth (mis)behaviour given the ASB badge is necessarily problematic’. In
this way, this view is not suggesting that all behaviour is tolerated; rather it is suggesting that
some be tolerated and accepted. Thus, the way this approach would tackle ASB is by
redefining what is and is not perceived as anti-social.
Earlier approaches to tackle ASB, such as those included in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act
and the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act focused on punishment rather than promoting
tolerance. The more recent 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act was no
different. The myriad range of punitive enforcement measures which have been utilized
against ASB have included informal or formal warning letters, verbal warnings, referral to
Youth Inclusion Programmes, Parenting Contracts, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs),
Parenting Orders, Child Safety Orders, Curfew Orders, Dispersal Orders, Individual Support
Orders, custodial penalties and tenancy enforcement actions (Pitts, 2005). Another punitive
measure was eliminating disrespect through ‘naming and shaming’. This was the idea that
inducing emotions such as shame and guilt will negatively impact on someone’s image. This
implies shaming them into not repeating negative behaviours, such as ASB, in the future
(Kaufman, 1993). Conversely, it was claimed that this could have the opposite impact and
incite further, even more serious, forms of ASB due to the perpetrator’s withdrawal from
society. This would be due to emotions such as angst and rage which could amplify incidents
of negative behaviours (Gaskell, 2008).
Family interventions
More supportive measures to tackle ASB came with the introduction of Family Intervention
Projects (FIPs) (Hodgkinson and Tilley, 2011). FIPs were first introduced during January
2006 as part of the Respect Action Plan (Respect Task Force, 2006b) to offer a range of
individualized support services to the most ‘anti-social families’ responsible for a significant
amount of ASB towards neighbours and a strain on local authority resources. According to
White et al. (2008), these types of families were those with the greatest need for support. The
FIP was later replaced by the Conservative coalition government’s Troubled Families
32
Programme (TFP, Bate, 2017). This was a targeted intervention for families with multiple
problems, including crime, anti-social behaviour, unemployment, mental health issues,
domestic abuse and truancy (Bate, 2017).
FIPs aimed to address root causes of ASB that enforcement-only approaches were not
adequately tackling (White et al., 2008). White et al. (2008) further reported that early
outcomes from the FIP intervention were encouraging. Families’ current housing situations
had improved in addition to a decrease in the risk of families engaging in ASB. Positive
impacts further included a reduction in the burden on local services working with challenging
families. However, White et al. did note that it is less clear what happens following exit from
a FIP - although Nixon et al. (2008) claimed that the positive outcomes were sustained later
down the line. Further support came from Wenham (2017) who claimed that considerable
improvements were evident in all key areas of the FIP’s work. However, White et al. (2008)
noted that the conclusions were deduced from very small samples. These samples, evaluators
themselves claimed, were biased and had no control groups to compare outcomes (Gregg,
2010).
Gregg heavily criticised the FIPs claiming that they targeted only ‘socially inadequate
families’ (2010: 14) and misrepresented the families involved – most of whom had
‘significant mental and physical health problems and learning disabilities’ (Gregg, 2010: 14).
Gregg boldly stated that the FIPs demonstrated ‘the nightmare place to which populist
political rhetoric and ‘policy-based evidence’ can deliver us.’ (2010: 16).
Recent research by Cate et al. (2016) has claimed that interventions are less effective if they
are solely criminogenic, that the promotion of positive behaviour is as important as the
reduction of anti-social behaviour. Similar to addressing public perceptions of ASB, Cate et
al. (2016) contended that several key factors should be considered when attempting to
intervene on ASB:
…anti-social behaviour is associated not only with individual vulnerabilities
but also social adversity and structural issues; early identification of at-risk
young people is not fool-proof and risks stigmatising and creating self-
fulfilling prophecies; harsh punishment is rarely effective. More broadly, anti-
social behaviour in general and some specific forms of anti-social behaviour
33
are not the social issue they are portrayed to be. With the exception of
vandalism, most acts of anti-social behaviour impact few people outside the
peer group. (Curtis, C. 2016).
Cate argues that incorrect assumptions, and the resulting policies and interventions, run the
risk of being at best ineffective and at worst harmful to the people at whom they are targeted.
To summarise, approaches to tackling ASB differ both in terms of the proposed underlying
causes of ASB and the measures taken to reduce it. The dominant view amongst recent
governments is that ASB is the result of a lack of respect at the individual level and a moral
decline at the societal level. Therefore, attempts to deal with ASB focus on punishing the
perpetrators of the behaviour. The view adopted by some academics (Bannister et al. 2006,
Millie, 2006; 2009) tends to run counter to the government approaches. For example,
Bannister et al. (2006) and Millie (2006) noted that it may be an issue of perception towards
behavioural expectations and intolerance. Millie contended that perceptions of ASB could
reflect a lack of tolerance and understanding of the behaviour of others, and through
misguided attempts to enforce moral standards on behaviour. Similarly, Bannister et al.
(2006) claim that it is contradictory to try to enforce a culture of respect and civility through
zero-tolerance approaches. Similarly, to achieve a more respectful society there must be
engagement between tolerance, civility and respect. Bannister at al. (2006) noted that,
fundamentally, the behavioural expectations of the majority and more powerful, in society
dictate what is perceived as acceptable. Anything that is not in tandem with these
domineering beliefs may be labelled as anti-social and thus deemed uncivil behaviour.
ASB and deprivation
As noted, ASB has been described as a prevalent issue within disadvantaged areas. Certain
groups of people are often perceived to be more anti-social than others. The media has cited
examples of neighbour problems in council estates (Scott and Parkey, 1998) and ASB has
been portrayed as a symptom, metaphor and scapegoat for the perceived decline of
neighbourhoods. The media has also been described as complicit in contributing to
influencing perceptions of ASB rates in such areas (Mackenzie et al., 2010). The mass media
has used derogatory terminology, for example in television shows entitled ‘Neighbours from
Hell’, portraying negative images and bad or excessive habits of the working-class
34
family(McCarthy, 2011). Political rhetoric has also used similar narratives. It has been argued
that this coincided with New Labour’s stigmatisation of single-parent mothers, whilst the
family was constructed as the facilitator of ASB through the capacity of such homes to
produce future criminal offspring (Respect Task Force, 2006; Gillies, 2008).
The notion of a bias against the lower classes in ASB research has also been reported (Sadler,
2008). According to Sadler (2008), research investigating ASB has historically often focused
on areas perceived to be troublesome, marginalised and criminalised. However not all
disadvantaged communities experience ASB problems to the same level (Flint et al., 2007).
There has also been a feeling of persecution amongst young people that are only exacerbated
through the use of ASB legislation (Sadler, 2008). The actual impact of such tools which
focus on the vulnerable, such as young people, may inadvertently accentuate negative
behaviours, including those considered anti-social. If ASB is perceived as a poor person’s, or
young person’s problem, then the underlying moral aspects of the behaviour may be missed,
which may take the focus to a broader population.
Another line of research has investigated heightened anxiety and concern in social housing
estates. According to Millie (2008) poor communities may be more susceptible to claims of
ASB. It has been argued that this may be the result of fallout from unintentional policy
developments, particularly planning and housing legislation (Hancock, 2001). Hancock
(2001) stipulated that much research has suggested the links between disorder and
neighbourhood areas can be altered and mediated by factors such as: residents’ tolerance,
costs and benefits of moving, the current condition and availability of amenities or local
services, as well as the existence of political or economic resources. Furthermore, according
to Clapham and Kintrea (1998), allocation policies within the public sector concentrated
disadvantaged households in unpopular locations whilst the economically advantaged were
housed in popular areas. If ASB is regarded as associated with poor neighbourhoods and
communities, especially vulnerable individuals within these areas, then there is the risk that
some behaviours may be misidentified as anti-social (Millie, 2007a). As Burney (2005)
contended, the congregating of young people in certain areas can be deemed anti-social but
this is a quintessential behaviour that is part of growing up. More concerning is the idea that
individuals with mental health issues or learning difficulties could end up criminalised or
entangled within ASB enforcement methods (Millie, 2007b).
35
It has been claimed that areas of bad housing in Britain have existed since industrialisation
and were associated with the mass migration to the towns and cities (Papps, 1998). The
growth of housing provision evolved from private rental to social housing, where slums were
considered ‘problematic’ areas, or ‘problem estate’ (Papps, 1998). Crawford and Flint (2009)
have stated that the preoccupation with ASB and disorder has recent origins from the context
of social housing, suggesting that this is the breeding ground of ASB. These ‘problem estates’
have been utilised by many to describe the areas of social housing believed to be ‘bad’ due
to: a fear of crime, poor housing conditions, vulnerable tenants or difficult tenants in addition
to instances of ASB (Papps, 1998).
The stigma attached to living in areas perceived to be ‘bad’ tends to precede incidents of
discrimination, such as when an individual from these areas attempt to attain employment
(Reynolds, 1986, as cited in Papps, 1998). It has further been argued that this label
accentuates the ASB tag as something that is lived up to in these areas and generates even
more surveillance and logging of anti-social or deviant acts (Armstrong and Wilson, 1973).
One study investigating concerns about ASB and crime has suggested that residents, who live
in deprived neighbourhoods, or areas perceived to be disadvantaged, are more liable to be
worried and anxious about crime (Kullberg et al., 2009). Egan et al. (2012) have claimed
there is an association between perceptions of young people behaving anti-socially and other
residents’ physical health in areas believed to be disadvantaged. They further stated that
people, particularly the elderly, who do not feel positive regarding the area they live in, are
more liable to identify youth behaviours as anti-social.
If ASB is framed as a social malaise implicitly and explicitly linked to areas perceived to be
poor, troubled locations, then it is further detracting from ASB being an issue of perception
rather than purely social deprivation. Another explanation for why ASB may have become
associated with deprivation is the notion that government welfare provision and approach to
social justice have become more punitive (Brown, 2012).
The coalition government in 2010 also brought austerity cuts alongside the promotion of the
‘Big Society’ as the solution to any social malaise (Levitas, 2012). Those living in
disadvantaged areas became further marginalized and disadvantaged through these economic
cuts (Levitas, 2012). If areas perceived in be in decline, deprived and physically dilapidated
are perceived as the catalysts for ASB, then further punishing those from such areas, both via
36
austerity cuts and the criminalization of youths through intolerance of behaviours perceived
to be ‘anti-social’, then ASB could continue to remain a ‘poor’ person’s problem, rather than
a moral issue affecting everyone. As Boyd (2006) has claimed, questions must be asked about
the nature of civility within society, including the source of it and how it should be cultivated.
It has an important function in modern society and the moral virtues that derive from it. This
emphasizes the importance of civility in helping the moral regeneration that UK policy aimed
to recreate. It is important to understand that ASB is not simply an issue for the poor, but also
a moral issue for all; that moral equality should diffuse throughout all groups within society.
Crimes of everyday life
The relationship between ASB and the everyday morality of all groups within society merits
further study and is considered in more detail in the following chapter. For example, if
everyday morality underlies ASB, it is important to understand how and when it might
influence someone to behave antisocially, and how it affects whether a behaviour is deemed
anti-social or not. Drawing on criminology and moral philosophy would allow deeper
understanding of the roots of everyday morality, the function ASB might serve in different
situations, and the normative factors that might determine if a behaviour is deemed anti-social
or not. Furthermore, such an approach might provide insight into how people make decisions
about how to act, and how to interpret the actions of others.
According to Karstedt and Farrall (2006: 1) there are well established notions of ‘crimes in
the suites’ and ‘crimes in the streets’. They contend that both of these concepts are under-
explored. In their research, everyday crimes and nuisances emerge within the terrain of the
crimes and unfair practices that are committed at the kitchen table, on the settee and from
home computers, from desks and call centres, at cash points in supermarkets or in restaurants,
and in interactions with others. They are committed by those who think of themselves as
respectable citizens, and some who may definitely reject the labels of ‘criminals’ and ‘crime’
for themselves and their actions (Karstedt and Farrall, 2006). These types of crime fall into a
grey zone of legality and morality. They include, amongst other things: jumping red lights;
not paying TV licence fees; making false insurance claims; claiming for refunds one is not
entitled to; requesting and paying ‘cash in hand’ in order to avoid taxes; claiming benefits
and subsidies that one is not entitled to. Not all behaviours comprised in this zone are
formally illegal. It has been claimed that these behaviours are frequently referred to as ‘sharp,
shady or unfair practices, but all are generally seen as morally dubious, both by those who
37
feel victimized and by those who admit to having engaged in some of them.’ (Karstadt and
Farrall, 2006: 1011). These types of behaviours have been described as ‘crimes of everyday
life’.
Interestingly, Karstedt and Farrall (2006) attempted to explore why these types of behaviours,
illegal, unethical or both, are prevalent in society and how they may convey the moral state of
society - even more so, than for instance violent street crimes. Their explanation as to why
some people may commit these ‘everyday crimes’ relates to their willingness to take
advantage of presented opportunities. Karstedt and Farrall (2006) concluded that citizens
discuss justifications and methods of committing crime that can create a moral clime that
encourages this behaviour. Thus, people’s behaviour, in relation to ‘everyday crimes’ that
straddle the line between more serious offending behaviour and those which ‘fall into a grey
zone of legality and morality’ (2006: 1011). Karstedt and Farrall (2006) give the example of
opportunities which people take advantage of for deceit, for example, lying to get their
children into the schools which they desire, should an opportunity for deceit arise. They did,
however, note that these behaviours are not necessarily immoral by definition. In the eyes of
those who may evade paying their TV license, make false tax or insurance claims and behave
in an anti-social manner, they may not perceive their behaviour as immoral.
In conclusion, some behaviours may be reflective of deprivation. But, as Karstadt and Farrall
(2006) suggest, there are also ‘crimes of everyday life’ that are ‘par for the course’ and are
not restricted to the most deprived in society. It may be that certain contexts may induce a
‘moral clime’ that encourages behaviour that would normally not be accepted. Similarly,
ASB may be behaviour that is stereotypically perceived as an issue of the young, poor and
deprived in society; however, those who are not from deprived areas are also capable of being
anti-social. The next section discusses official data on ASB, considering issues of measuring
and reporting ASB.
Official Data on ASB
A government report into findings from the 2005/06 British Crime Survey (Upson, 2006)
examined perceptions and experiences of ASB. It was acknowledged that there was a
relationship between fear and perceived disorderly behaviour. Perceptions of ASB were
measured from seven questions: namely, problems with noisy neighbours or loud parties,
38
teenagers and young people hanging around, rubbish or litter, vandalism and graffiti, people
using or dealing drugs, drunkenness, and finally abandoned cars. According to Upson (2006)
in the year prior to 2004/05, 1 in 6 people had perceived high levels of ASB within their local
community. The dominant type of ASB was perceived as young people hanging around and
littering. The report claimed that 31 per cent of the population (from 16 and over) believed
this was a ‘very’ or ‘fairly big’ problem within their areas. More recently in the Crime Survey
for England and Wales (CSEW) (ONS, 2015) 28 per cent of respondents had experienced or
witnessed ASB within their local area, in the year ending June 2015. More specifically, 10
per cent of adults had experienced or seen drink related ASB and 8 per cent had witnessed
groups congregating. Around one in ten believed that there was a high level of ASB within
their local area. The report was concluded by the claim that most ASB indicators have
decreased since the 2002/03 BCS.
Upson’s (2006) report claimed 53 per cent of people did not think ASB was a problem in
their area (Millie, 2009). According to the ONS (2013), during the 2011/12 period, 82 per
cent of people who had witnessed drink-related ASB reported that this had little or no effect
on their daily routine. In addition, 76 per cent of respondents who had experienced or
witnessed groups congregating around streets reported that this too had little or no impact on
their daily routine. It can be suggested from this that ASB - in particular the most commonly
experienced in an area - may not always be perceived as problematic and have an impact on
witnesses’ daily lives.
One possible explanation as to why some ASB is construed as not serious enough to report
may be the context-specific nature of ASB, which may determine whether a behaviour is
perceived as anti-social in certain areas (Whitehead, Stockdale and Razzu, 2003; MacDonald,
2006; Millie, 2008). For example, Millie (2008) has suggested that within certain contexts,
for example urban areas, the way individuals use urban spaces are mostly determined by our
understandings and expectation of others’ behaviours. Similar research into perceptions of
ASB by Farrow and Prior (2006) claimed that potential explanations for low-levels of
complaints in urban areas could be due to different cultural expectations of behaviour. There
may be greater acceptance of behaviour that is generally deemed anti-social, and within local
communities there may be a reduced need for complaints as problems are dealt with
differently. Another possible reason was that there may be poor knowledge in terms of
knowing who to complain to or there may be low levels of trust between people and local
39
agencies. Therefore, data collection on ASB may also be influenced by context and location,
as these two factors impact on the behavioural expectations and norms of a particular area.
It was reported that there were two million incidents of ASB in the year ending September
2014 (ONS, 2015). The number of recorded ASB incidences, recorded by the police and the
British Transport Police, had decreased by ten percent when compared against the 2013
figures. A decline in ASB was also reported in both the 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 records.
These were consistent with recent trends in the total amount of police recorded crime (ONS,
2015). According to police figures (ONS, 2015) 67 per cent of recorded ASB is categorized
as nuisance, 27 per cent is personal ASB, and 6 per cent is environmental ASB. To
summarise, official measures of ASB appear to have been dropping in Britain. However,
there are critical points to consider regarding data collection methods. The remaining
question to answer is why recorded levels of ASB have decreased in the UK and is this
related to changing perceptions or tolerance of ASB?
The level of subjective interpretation of what constitutes ASB could be influencing ASB
figures. Edwards (2013) has claimed that Home Office guidelines (2004) on what behaviours
fall under each heading are heavily influenced by interpretation, inadvertently generating
much variation in terms of recorded incidents. Edwards (2013) cited the example of an
incident of ‘vehicle related nuisance’ - which may be a life-threatening criminal offence such
as setting a vehicle alight. However, this could also be low-level irritating behaviour such as
cycling on pedestrian footpaths. Further problems such as definitional issues and overlapping
categories of ASB, including different perceptions of recorded ASB between different
agencies, are a challenge for government policy on ASB and impact on all aspects of data
collection (Matthews and Briggs, 2008). For example, Heap (2009) notes it is not clear what
should be measured and which agency, or agencies, are responsible for data collection (see
also Whitehead et al., 2003). Heap further reported that issues defining and measuring ASB
are further compounded by the blurred relationship between ASB and crime. For example,
Innes (2004: 345) suggests that many people have trouble in establishing ‘a clear distinction
between crime and anti-social behaviour when constructing judgements about levels of risk in
an area’.
Despite falls in official crime rates and ASB levels, members of society maintain the
perception that ASB and crime are high. The question emerging from this is why people
40
maintain this view. According to Bremner et al. (2008) there is a gap between measurable
incidents of crime, and the subjective public perceptions of criminality. Bremner et al. (2008)
contend that it is probable that the social construction of crime involves a diverse range of
concerns about social problems in local communities, including ASB such as littering on
streets, broken windows or a simple ‘lack of respect’. The importance of perceptions in
terms of what people believe constitutes ASB has been noted (Mackenzie et al., 2010). It
seems this also applies to crime. How these perceptions or beliefs of a rise in ASB are linked
to a perceived moral decline has also been reported (Millie, 2010). It is possible that one of
the reason for changing figures and trends for ASB could be linked to perceptions within
neighbourhoods as to what constitutes ASB. This could be a contributing factor mediating the
level of reported incidents of ASB.
The perception that ASB is rising was evidenced by the 2011/12 CSEW (ONS, 2013),
according to which almost of a third of individuals had experienced, or been witness to, some
form of ASB in the previous twelve months. Forty-nine per cent of participants believed ASB
was increasing, and 15 per cent had perceived high levels of ASB in their local community
during 2011/12. This was despite statistics from the previous year giving no indication of a
rise in ASB. An underlying explanation for why perceptions are not in tandem with reported
incidences of ASB has been attributed to the interpretive and definitional concerns of what
ASB is (as outlined at the start of this chapter). According to the ONS (2013) the distinction
between an incident of crime and an incident of ASB is not as clear as it needs to be.
According to the ONS, there are multiple occasions when ASB could be also designated
criminal by law. However, these differences in what is crime and what is ASB are something
that the public may overlook (ONS, 2013).
Conclusions
This chapter has provided an account of definitional issues with ASB, and the history of talk
of ASB - from early political discussions to recent debate on tackling ASB through new
legislative tools such as the IPNA (Home Office, 2013). Most talk of ASB has emerged from
the realms of politics, the media, social housing and the public. There are issues in clearly
defining what ASB is, and this was reported to be heavily influenced by perception and
context. This is clearly problematic. First, the role perception plays in determining ASB may
lead to more behaviours being deemed anti-social. Second, the imprecise definitions of ASB,
41
and the power of non-state actors (such as social housing providers) to use punitive legal
tools means that previously ‘non-criminal’ behaviour is now being criminalised (Brown,
2004). Essentially, people are being criminalised for actions which are not sufficient to be
punished by the criminal law. An emphasis on ASB also ignores issues of ‘social
connectedness’ (Mackenzie et al., 2010). A number of people with competing views,
expectations and values all inhabit the same space, particularly in urban environments, and
tolerating behaviour, rather than seeking to condemn it, may be the more positive solution to
dealing with that which is perceived as ‘different’.
Previous interventions aimed at tackling ASB involved punitive legislation, regulation of
behaviour in poverty stricken families or areas, and the attempted enforcement of respect,
morality and civility. The UK official rates of ASB have been decreasing, however public
fears remain high.
The possible link between ASB and everyday morality was introduced, with particular
reference to political talk of respect and a broken society. This is examined in more detail in
the next chapter which considers how the behavioural expectations of people relate to their
sense of morality, and the influence this has on their perceptions of others’ behaviours.
42
Chapter 2.
Anti-Social Behaviour and Everyday Morality
Introduction
ASB has been framed by UK governments as an issue related to a lack of respect and to
moral decline. Brown (2004: 204) has claimed that, ‘although crime is ubiquitous, anti-social
behaviour is deemed by the government to occur principally in social housing areas’. As
highlighted in Chapter 1, ASB is often presented as a poor person’s problem, and not
something that is prevalent within society as a whole. As a result, talk about ASB and moral
decline has tended to focus on those aspects of everyday morality that affect the more
disadvantaged - such as discussions about aggressive behaviour perpetrated on social housing
estates - and ignores those behaviours that are equally anti-social, but more likely to affect
economically advantaged groups, such as tax avoidance.
It is important to understand how and when moral choices might influence someone to
behave antisocially and how everyday morality affects whether a behaviour is perceived to be
anti-social or not. Studying ASB from the perspective of moral philosophy would allow
deeper understanding of the moral roots of perceived ASB, whilst studying it from a
criminological viewpoint could illuminate the purpose that ASB might serve in different
situations, and the normative factors that might determine if a behaviour is deemed anti-social
or not. Thus, looking at ASB through both criminological and philosophical lens could
provide insights into how people make decisions about how to act, and how to interpret the
actions of others. This may also help inform current understandings of what ASB is to
different people in different contexts. It may further elucidate any links between everyday
morality and ASB. Therefore, this chapter examines the relationship between anti-social
behaviour and everyday morality.
The question of morality, what it is and where it comes from has been a concern for
philosophers for a very long time (see e.g. Frankena, 1966). Frankena (1966) stated that
43
asking the question ‘what is morality’ presents a complex task as it is an ambiguous and
vague question. He stated that one such method of addressing this is to answer the question
‘When is an individual, group, or society to be said to have a morality or a moral action-
guide?’ (1966: 688). Frankena (1966) iterated that this may be answered through multifarious
methods (singular or pluralistic concept theories) yet acknowledged that ‘We cannot try to
describe or discuss them all now’ (1966: 688). Building on from Frankenna’s observations, it
is not possible within this scope of this chapter to cover thousands of years of moral
philosophy. Thus, this thesis is selective in focusing on particular aspects of moral
philosophy pertinent to everyday morality. It is further important to acknowledge that other
approaches in moral philosophy may have led to different conclusions in this study. This is
considered in the concluding chapter of the thesis.
It was claimed by Darwin (1871, as cited in DeScioli and Kurzban, 2009) that morality is a
derivation of sympathy which originated as a social instinct found in animals. This sympathy
evolved into morality through a process called group-selection whereby those groups
possessing morality out-competed those without morality. However, this theory could not
account for the variety of moral rules nor why humans believe people should be punished
when these rules are violated (DeScioli and Kurzban, 2009). According to Solomon and
Higgins (2010) a person’s morality is responsible for regulating their behaviour. It ‘sets limits
to our desires, and our actions. It tells us what is permitted and what is not...It tells us what
we ought to do and what we ought not to do’ (Solomon and Higgins, 2010: 257). According
to Bernard Gert (2004), although such moral rules and ideals are often identified constituents
of morality, these alone do not define morality.
Others have asked whether morality can even be defined, a point raised by Skorupski (1993),
who proposed that to define it is impossible, and that the closest that can be got to a definition
is defining its 'sense', its general purpose, but not its precise meaning. One way to try to
understand moral perspectives is to consider the rules or codes that individuals adhere to.
This is a deontological approach to morality, and is the perspective adopted within this thesis.
In the next section the notion of ‘common’ morality is looked at in more detail. A common
morality is a system in which such rules and ideals are entrenched. The focus for the
remainder of this chapter is how morality relates to ASB, exploring notions of civility, moral
relativism, issues of defining morality, Kantian ethics and the social contexts of morality.
44
Common morality
The notion of common morality shares many features with the term ‘everyday morality’ that I
have used in the current study. For example, Bhaskarjit (2007) claimed that in the history of
moral philosophy there has been a common trend to use the phrase ‘common morality’ or
‘common-sense morality’ in reference to every-day, ordinary values and norms. He iterated
that philosophers tend to use this term when they compare or contrast the common view with
the implications of ethical theories for genuine understanding of morality. Bhaskarjit
acknowledged that morality is a complex phenomenon, the origin of which has been traced
back to a diverse range of principles that underpin our everyday common beliefs and
attitudes. He purported that people cannot deny that common sense moral intuitions
underlining beliefs and attitudes constitute the foundation of everyday human practice -
although it has been argued that what constitutes common morality and its contents has been
obscured by the imprecise scope of the term (Bhaskarjit, 2007). One point that remains
consistent is that common sense intuition is an intrinsic element of morality. However,
Bhaskarjit (2007) acknowledged that there has not been an all-encompassing understanding
of ‘common morality’ within a systematic framework for a theory of morality1. Despite this,
Bhaskarjit has reported on a few contemporary definitions that aim to incorporate various
conceptions of what constitutes common morality.
1. A first definition noted was proposed by Tom Beauchamp (2003: 260) who stated that
‘common morality’ is ‘the set of norms shared by all persons committed to the
objectives of morality… it is applicable to all persons in all places, and all human
conduct is rightly judged by its standard’.
2. A second definition noted by Bhaskarjit (2007) was by Samuel Scheffler (1992: 122,
as cited in Van den Hoven, 2006) who believed common morality is ‘a conviction so
widely shared in our culture, and so deeply entrenched, that outside of philosophy it is
scarcely ever articulated, let alone explicitly challenged’.
3. Bhaskarjit also mentioned a third definition by Bernard Gert (2004: 1): ‘Common
morality is the moral system that thoughtful people use, usually implicitly, when they
make moral decisions and judgments. It is the only guide to behavior affecting others
that all rational persons understand and upon which they can all agree.’
1 This point links with the current study’s aim to develop knowledge of what is everyday morality.
45
These definitions suggest that a common morality is something that we all share and have in
common. However, Bhaskarjit (2007) argues that, whether common morality is ‘a moral
system’ or ‘a set of shared norms’ or ‘a widely shared conviction’, the key point to be drawn
from these definitions is that common morality entails an ordinary ethical standard which
corresponds to the minimal moral sentiments of every morally serious person. He further
contended that these sentiments are perceived as a self-approved setup by which we evaluate
and characterize our everyday dealings. First, he concluded that there are norms and
intuitions which are spontaneously shared by all morally serious agents. Second, these are not
specifically theoretical in nature; instead, they are comprehended as simple beliefs, rules,
ideals and basic attitudes of moral deliberation. Third, these norms are self-established by the
way we each construct our ethical convictions, a normative framework that each individual
possesses who is capable of taking moral issues seriously.
Finally, within this moral system, there is a common, collective consciousness that is innate.
This moral system forms the fulcrum of everyday living, for which minimal understanding of
morality is a prerequisite. Based on these definitions and the previous understandings of what
constitutes common morality, the current study suggests a similar approach in
conceptualising what is everyday morality.
Of course, the existence of a common morality is not a recent innovation, although, the
framework for understanding what it is and the studying of common morality is still
relatively new (Bhaskarjit, 2007). This point was bolstered by Beauchamp (2003) who
contended that there is one universal common-sense morality and many more theories of
common morality. Gert (2004) and Beauchamp (2003) both have a deontological
understanding of the structure of common morality which is portrayed by rules, principles
and ideas. This is practised by all individuals throughout the world and the character of
common morality is in fact a universal concept.
Of course, relativists might take a different view, something that is considered in more detail
later in this chapter. For instance, others have argued that common morality is expressed via
our day-to-day moral beliefs and in a looser sense, rather than being explicitly structured in a
certain way on a global scale. This notion was espoused by Turner (2003) who claimed that
the beliefs and norms that underpin common morality may not be universal. They may
46
instead be very much localised within their own right. More specifically, Turner would
contend that something could be construed as ‘common’, not just because it is an
overwhelmingly shared and practiced norm within a society, but also due to reasonable
grounds underlying such a belief. For example, a particular norm may be encouraged,
through approval from others, from any person in a society. This perspective advocates a
more relative approach to understanding everyday morality.
Previous research into morality has attempted to clarify the common morality that guides our
everyday actions and beliefs and how we meaningfully discuss and understand everyday
moral dilemmas and problems (Bhaskarjit, 2007). The perspectives of Gert (2004) and
Beauchamp (2003) have paved the way in terms of providing a framework that can be used to
understand common morality. For instance, Gert (2004) claimed that common morality
provides a framework that enables individuals to integrate information relating to:
Their own view on the scope of morality,
Rankings of the potential harms or benefits of behaviours,
The potential positive or negative ramifications of everyone knowing that a certain
violation is allowed or not allowed, and
The interpretation of rules.
It is this systemic framework that enables individuals to navigate their everyday lives in terms
of moral decisions and judgments which have been incorporated into their moral framework.
Gert (2005) further proposed that one universal feature of morality is, despite all the
variations of it, that anyone who can be judged by moral ideals understands the behaviours
that morality discourages, requires, promotes and encourages. Consequently, moral
judgements can be made about any rational individual, making morality a universal
phenomenon; and what appear to be different moral systems and specifications are simply
variations of a universal, core moral system (Gert, 2005). According to Gert, a common
morality ‘has as a necessary feature that it be a public system that applies to all rational
creatures’ (Gert, 2004: 6). For example, for Gert the following rules would be universal: do
not cause pain, keep your promises, do not kill, and so on. However, there are exceptions to
these rules dependent upon which moral system or approach you consider i.e. deontology,
consequentialism, or virtue ethics. Deontology refers to ethics that derive from a sense of
duty and rules, or what ought to be. Consequentialism emphasises the consequences of
47
actions or thoughts. Virtue ethics focuses on the personal character or virtues of an agent and
their actions, rather than duty or consequences.
Alternatively, according to Rebecca Kukla (2014: 82) common morality is ‘our starting point
for moral reasoning’. She advocates that ‘actions are what do the bulk of the work in settling
the content of common morality.’ (2014: 81). Kukla further suggests:
… what is common between (almost) all of us ... is ... an endlessly complex
yet remarkably stable web of embodied normative responses, coping
techniques, perceptual skills, communicative rituals, ways of making public
our desires and needs, and so on (2014: 81, emphasis in original).
Furthermore, the main content of common morality is conveyed by our ability to interact
through ‘normative transactions’ with each other. This is even when we interact with those
who come from various different backgrounds and experiences. Kukla contends that,
ultimately, we are bound by our common morality in virtue of our lived experience, and it is
not something that we are able to simply ‘opt-out’ of. The common norms that operate in life
are open to change and critique. Whilst Kukla maintains that such norms have a ‘powerful
presumptive weight’ (2014: 83), they are not absolute. However, the debate continues on
whether common morality is in fact universal or dependent on factors such as social context.
The idea that there is a universal understanding, or common knowledge, of morality has
previously been explained through an analogy linking it to how individuals understand
grammar that all competent speakers of a language use (Gert, 2005). Gert (2005) stated that,
although the majority of speakers may not be able to explicitly describe the grammar system,
all competent speakers know how to use it when interpreting others’ speech and when
speaking to others. Therefore, whilst the understanding of many different aspects of morality
may be debated, it has been claimed that a common morality is a universal phenomenon with
various specifications (Gert, 2005).
The concept of a common morality has been a cornerstone idea in the genealogy of
philosophy, but has also featured in contemporary issues pertaining to the political, moral and
legal aspects of society (Outka and Reeder, 1993). It has also been claimed that moral
behaviours, such as the need to circumvent harm, unfairness and inequality, are universal
48
(Bacchini et al., 2013). However, this commonality is not shared by all when defining
morality, to which there are various claims; for example Outka and Reeder (1993: 30)
defined morality as:
…a set of rules or directives for actions and institutions, especially as these are
held to support or uphold what are taken to be the most important values or
interests of persons other than or in addition to the agent.
This definition suggests that morality involves adherence to these rules or directives and that
this is compulsory, irrespective of an individual’s personal proclivities or institutional
involvement. Solomon and Higgins (2010) claimed that moral rules often take the form of
commandments, like the Ten Commandments within Judeo-Christian tradition. These are
orders that tend to be used through words such as ‘ought or ought not’ (Solomon and
Higgins, 2010: 245, emphasis in original). One way that citizens can adhere to these rules and
attain moral respect is through everyday civility.
Virtues
To consider another philosophical perspective, virtue theory places emphasis on the character
of a moral agent. Jeong (2013) claimed that virtue ethics focuses on how virtues and moral
character can help explain the actions of virtuous agents (Jeong, 2013). This contrasts with a
deontological perspective that emphasises the notion of doing one’s duty or following rules,
or consequentialism which focuses on the outcome of actions (Baron, Petit and Slote, 2003).
According to Jeong (2013: 47) questions one might raise as a virtue theorist include; ‘What
kind of person should I be?’ or ‘How should I live?’. Jeong (2013: 47) distinguishes this from
deontology where the concentration could be on ‘What is the right or obligatory thing to do’.
According to Millie (2016: 34) virtue ethics focuses on ‘the qualities of the individual rather
than the quality of a person’s behaviour’ and that the process of evaluating a behaviour is
understood ‘in terms of the character of the person’ (2016: 34). At this point, it would be
prudent to discuss Aristotle who adopted a virtue ethics approach. Aristotle claimed that a
good person is someone who ‘embodied all the excellences of human character’ (Driver,
2007: 137). Millie (2016: 34) identified that what Aristotle refers to as good character
reflects ‘virtues such as honesty, justice, benevolence, courage, prudence, temperance…’.
49
Thus, whether an act is perceived as ‘right’ is deemed so ‘if it exemplifies virtue, or if the
virtuous person, the person who has all the virtues, would do it’ (Bennett, 2015: 97). The
question to answer is what person gets to decide which behaviours are virtuous and which are
not. Millie (2016) iterated that temperance or self-control is often perceived as a virtue, but
restraint is not typically perceived as a good thing. Further, what behaviour is virtuous may
be perceived as not virtuous is dependent upon subjective values. A good example of this is
provided by Millie (2016: 35) who noted that ‘a thief may show courage, but very few people
would argue that this was a good thing’. Thus, for Millie, perhaps context and motives are as
important is dictating what virtues are commended and those which are not.
Critics of virtue ethics have iterated existential issues, for example:
... there is no such thing as a pre-established pattern that dictates how human
beings should live and what they should value. Human beings, the
existentialists claim, are essentially free; they must set their own goals and
aims; and do not just ‘find’ what they ought to do written in the stars.
(Bennett, 2015: 98).
If there is no standard, pre-ordained pattern of human behaviour that all should follow, or
value, then it is a question of who has the authority to decide what behaviours and values
should be followed. Despite the limitations of virtue ethics, according to Millie (2016) it may
help criminological understanding of what types of character and virtues may help people
resist behaving criminally (or anti-socially). Anthony Bottoms (2015: 3) claimed that
acquiring a more virtuous disposition may help someone desist from criminal behaviour or at
least help them find ‘turnaround in their lives’. Building on this, the next section considers
the role of civility and how this may help our understanding of ASB.
Everyday Civility
‘Civility’ can typically be described as ‘an acceptable level of politeness’ (Lent, 2008: 1). It
can be defined as ‘an individual’s capacity or willingness to orient themselves towards the
social’ (Lent, 2008: 1). Civility has also been simplified as respect for the dignity, and the
desire for the dignity, of other people (Shils, 1997, as cited in Boyd, 2006). It has been
50
described as interwoven with the democratic ideology of moral equality. Incivil behaviour,
such as being rude or condescending, is to treat someone as if they are not your moral equal.
At its most fundamental level, civility encompasses the willingness of an individual to
moderate or accept some constraint on their own desires in order to protect the well-being of
others. Lent (2008) contends that when this willingness fails to control an individual’s own
desires there is a crisis of civility. He further explains that this failure exists through human
interaction in public spaces. For example, the unconstrained desire of another to play music
out loud, or to over indulge in alcohol and engage in drunken or disorderly behaviour can all
constitute incivil behaviour. Converse to being civil, incivility has been described as
reflecting a poor quality of relationships between members of different groups which create
and foster social disharmony (Bannister and O’Sullivan, 2013). It can assume the form of
direct or indirect conflict, or opposing expectations of social interactions and the perceptions
that individuals harbour towards others (Bannister and O’Sullivan, 2013). Through this,
social disharmony may manifest itself through the behaviour or perceptions someone has of
others. In the context of this study, ASB can be equated with incivility. Both concepts have
been discussed in political discourse and research (See Chapter 1).
Being civil is a way of ‘generating mutual regard, respect and democratic equality’ (Boyd,
2006: 865). According to Boyd civility has two primary functions. First, it is to ‘ease social
tensions enabling social interaction’ (2006: 863). Second, civility enhances ‘collaboration
irrespective of differences and disagreements.’ (2006: 863). This civility is achieved by
maintaining a formal distance and politeness between people. It has also been claimed that
civility has a moral role through expressing the equality of all members within a democratic
society. It is the formal courtesies and communications that convey respect for the equal
‘moral, social and political status of others’ (Boyd. 2006: 872).
However, it has been claimed that formal acts of civility may lack depth and have the
opposite consequences of undermining interaction between people. In such cases, they may
be construed as arrogant, offensive or aloof, creating the unintended effect of being labelled
‘uncivil’ behaviour (Laegaard. 2008). Laegaard (2008) linked civility to notions of tolerance
and respect, claiming that civility itself is imbued with some elements of the two.
Respectively, both the concepts of tolerance and respect have been linked to ASB as
51
solutions to the problem - and intolerance and disrespect seen as potential causes (Millie,
2006).
According to Laegaard (2008) it means one thing to be civil in relation to everyday social
interactions and another thing in political discourse. In everyday social interactions,
particularly amongst strangers, civility involves being polite and having good manners as
well as being courteous (Laegaard, 2008). ASB has often been equated with the opposite to
civility, namely incivility (e.g. Smith and Phillips, 2004; Millie, 2008; Donoghue, 2010). It is
the contention of this thesis that perceptions of ASB (and everyday incivility) are influenced
by an individual’s moral stance of what constitutes everyday morality. It is suggested that
everyday morality can provide a framework to understand how individuals navigate everyday
social situations in public spaces on a daily basis.
Everyday morality and relativism
According to the anthropologist Jarrett Zigon (2008), philosophers have been struggling for
over 2,000 years over what constitutes the moral, what is the good life and what is the good.
Yet, he acknowledged that, for all of the philosophical explorations that have been conducted,
not much notice has been given to the everyday moral lives of actual, living people. Another
anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1906) proposed that different moralities exist between
different societies, proclaiming that ‘a mode of conduct which among one people is
condemned as wrong is among other people viewed with indifference or enjoyed as a duty’
(1906: 742). Similarly, Ruth Benedict (1956: 195) stated that morality is no more than a
‘convenient term for socially approved habits’. According to Zigon (2008) it was this
definition of morality that became accepted by moral relativists and anthropologists.
Westermarck’s and Benedict’s perspectives on morality were amalgamated into a relativist
definition of morality by Raymond Firth (1951: 183):
Morality is a set of principles on which [judgments of right and wrong] are
based. Looked at empirically from the sociological point of view, morality is
socially specific in the first instance. Every society has its own moral rules
about what kinds of conduct are right and what are wrong, and members of
society conform to them or evade them, and pass judgement accordingly.
52
This is in tandem with the assumption of moral relativists that morality is relative to different
contexts and beliefs. Zigon (2008) claimed that this perspective underlies much of the
anthropological literature on morality and is assumed to mostly be true. For example, Fiske
and Mason (1990: 131) explain that there is an ‘obvious cultural and historical diversity in
moral systems’. Zigon (2008) attempted to exemplify moral relativism through the example
of a father and child relationship. To put this into context, he claimed that a good father may
feel obliged to go outside and play with his child, for example, to teach his son how to throw
and hit a baseball. If the father does not do this, the child may still eventually learn to play
baseball by other means and develop into a baseball star of the future. To compound the
father’s ‘neglect’ of not teaching his son to play baseball, he also does not visit any of his
games. Some people may perceive this as the behaviour of a poor father, but does this make
him immoral? Has the father broken some cultural moral code, is this a moral issue or is it a
culturally prescribed obligation for the father to teach his son as well as exhibit support at his
games? Some may feel this is not immoral behaviour, but it is not behaviour perceived
favourably. Therefore, the issue conveyed here is where the line is drawn between something
that is an issue of morality and something that is not an issue of morality. Similarly, where is
the line drawn between ASB that is immoral and ASB that is not necessarily immoral?
Another pertinent question to ask is how do the public discern whether a certain type of
behaviour is of moral concern or not in their everyday lives and is there a standard, universal
everyday morality that all people live by?
The next issue of defining everyday morality is what actually makes a certain type of
behaviour moral or immoral. In the context of the present study, the moral relativist approach
can be applied to understanding ASB within the UK. The assumption of moral relativists is
that morality differs within and between societies. An alternative to a relativist position is that
there is one predominant morality within a certain social group. Similar to the notion of a
culture, there are homogenous beliefs intertwined with a particular society. Shore (1990b)
espoused a similar position, claiming that moral relativism considers morality as
homogenously bounded within societal groups or societies. The next section will consider
morality on an individual scale.
Individual morality
As noted, the issues of ASB and urban disorder have received much attention from politicians
and the media within the UK since the mid-1990s (Powell and Flint, 2009). Media reports of
53
elderly people being terrorised by children, joy-riding, harassment and noise nuisance were
prolific across Britain (Haworth and Manzi, 1999). Whilst there was a variety of explanation
for this, the root cause of this behaviour was framed as being the consequence of individuals
who were out of control in concentrated areas of lawlessness (Haworth and Manzi, 1999). It
was the immoral behaviour of the few that were at fault for the consequences suffered by
other social housing tenants. As previously highlighted, within this disadvantaged context,
ASB was framed as a poor person’s problems in deprived areas. ASB was blamed on a badly-
behaved minority.
Moral relativists would maintain that the prevalence of ASB within these identified deprived
areas may be consistent with the moral expectation and standards of some groups within
these locations. Contrastingly, moral psychologist Luco (2014) proposed an alternative
deontological definition of morality. According to Luco, a morality contains a system of core
rules, modes of character development and psychological states. These enable the functioning
of ‘mutually beneficial social cooperation’ (Luco, 2014:1) between individuals. Luco
advocates that a set of criteria must be satisfied in order to achieve a definition of morality or
moral systems.
Similar to Gert (2004), Luco notes that morality entails both a descriptive and normative
sense. Luco shares the idea that individuals, who are different, have internalised and endorsed
different codes of conduct. The importance of distinguishing between morality in the
descriptive and normative sense, and the inclusion of ‘rational’ persons, serves to provide an
understanding of group or individual morality that may not be in line with others. Luco
extends this to examples, such as Hitler’s morality or Nazi morality, the Pope’s morality or
Catholic morality. The issue is that morality itself is ubiquitous to human nature; and to have
an increased understanding of human nature, Luco claims, we should be heavily invested and
interested in having a descriptive definition of morality. This is linked to the current
investigation as Luco notes that morality is supposed to provide a reference point to
normative reasons as to why individuals or groups act, feel or think in a particular way rather
than another. He purports that having a descriptive definition of morality would enable us to
answer the question, ‘what does morality demand of us?’. Having a descriptive definition of
morality would allow researchers to try and discern what the prerequisites of morality are for
human nature, namely what are the factors that provide an authoritative moral requirement
for humans in the first place. A descriptive definition of morality is a ‘code of conduct
54
actually endorsed by an individual or group’ (Luco, 2014: 2), thus it can be utilised to speak
of the moralities of various individuals or groups. Luco claims we should be interested in this
as moral discourse has always been present throughout human history; to comprehend what
morality is and why it is ubiquitous are both relevant to the understanding the moral aspects
of why people behave, think, feel or act in one way rather than another. Second, Luco iterated
that morality is believed to have authority in people’s lives and a descriptive definition of
morality may help elucidate what sort of authority or requirements morality demands of
people.
If the current research is able to provide further evidence regarding what people perceive as
everyday morality, then this could contribute to informing the questions posed by Luco.
What are the individual codes, or group codes, of conduct that are internalised in relation to
people’s perceptions of ASB? Is behaviour perceived as being anti-social due to the
perpetrator’s action being not in tandem with others’ moral codes of conduct – an individual
or relativist understanding of morality? The present study may help provide further
perspectives on what people perceive as being a moral or immoral action and, drawing on
relativism, whether this is purely because of different sets of standards.
A Kantian perspective
To take a different perspective on understanding what everyday morality is, a Kantian
framework for understanding morality is considered. According to Millie (2016) Kant’s
approach provides a useful method of understanding why particular behaviours or actions
may be perceived as morally wrong or criminalised. Kant’s work drew on the Golden Rule,
‘a subjective and individualistic approach to morality, but one with wider societal impacts.’
(Millie, 2016: 47). In a general context, the Golden Rule means to treat others how you
would like to be treated; it is universal and reciprocal (Millie, 2016).
Kant (2002b: 118) began with the claim that it is an ‘empirically observable fact’ that people
harbour ‘moral and ethical views’. His perspective was deontological, or rule and duty-based,
where morality is normative and sourced from a sense of duty. The rightness and wrongness
of actions themselves are the pivotal concern, not the consequences of actions (Kant, 2002b).
His two key assumptions are that only humans are capable of rationalism and are capable of
autonomy (Kant, 2002b). Kant’s (2002b) understanding of morality is that rational thought
55
guides us to an objective reality and objective morality; there is a single moral obligation
inherent within all rational beings. Kant (1975/1990) termed this the ‘Categorical Imperative’
(CI) which encompasses the moral law. His first Formula of Universal Law was that we
should:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law. (Kant, 1975/1990: 1031).
Fundamentally, the concept here is that you should question whether your action could
become a universal law. Millie (2016) gives the example of stealing. If an individual lives by
the maxim to be a thief and steals from others, this individual should ask if this could become
a universal law. Millie stated that the answer is no, as this would mean ‘…the thief would be
content for other people to steal from him’ (2016: 45). The opposite of this, to not steal from
others, would become the categorical moral imperative. According to Millie (2016) the
Categorical Imperative is a useful means to understand why particular behaviours or actions
may be perceived as morally wrong and criminalised. He cited Kant’s example of borrowing
money that may not be paid back:
The maxim of his action would then be expressed as follows: when I believe
myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it
back, although I know that I can never do so. Now this principle of self-love
or personal advantage may perhaps be compatible with one’s entire future
welfare, but the question is now whether it is right. I then transform the
requirement of self-love into a universal law and put the question thus: how
would things stand if my maxim were to become a universal law? He then sees
at once that such a maxim could never hold as a universal law. (Kant,
1785/1990: 1032).
For Millie (2016) this heuristic has merit in assisting our understanding of what may be
regarded as wrong. In particular, why certain behaviours and actions should be censured. His
explanation for this succinctly conveys the issue of censuring actions:
There are clear benefits to the individual in taking the money, but this would
put the benefits they accrue above the costs to the lender (and to other future
56
borrowers who will no doubt end up paying higher interest rates). (2016: 45).
The implication is that from both examples, the borrower and the thief treated another person
as a means to an end. This is Kant’s second formulation, his Formula of Humanity as an End
in Itself:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
(Kant: 1975/1990: 1036).
This formulation suggests that treating others as you would treat yourself, for example having
respect for yourself and for others. Bartels et al. (2015) have likened Kant’s perspective to the
Ten Commandments of the Old Testament in terms of their absoluteness – for example, an
unambiguous prohibition against murdering another. Similarly, Kant’s first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative is absolute, in that you must act ‘only (emphasis added) in accordance
with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law’
(Kant, 1987/1990: 1031). That said, Bartel et al. (2015) noted that people struggle to
delineate right and wrong. They claimed that people experience moral conflict between
multiple moral principles with differing mandates. Consequently, this creates disagreements
and can generate tension between moral principles. However, they do acknowledge that
variations in context can influence what moral beliefs are more likely to manifest and affect
judgment or decision-making.
The reason Kant’s Categorical Imperative is important is that it emphasises the requirement
for respect for yourself and others. Thus, this may provide insight into why certain
behaviours within contemporary society may be deemed disrespectful, or morally wrong.
Kant contended that the demands of the moral law in humans derive from categorical
imperatives, or principles that are consistently valid across humanity. They require
obedience in all situations and circumstances if we are to adhere to the moral law.
If there are indeed universal features of morality, then Kant’s perspective may offer insight
for the current study by providing a potential, duty-based ethical perspective on why
individuals are perceived to behave anti-socially or not anti-socially. It may also explain why
some obey moral laws and others do not. Therefore, Kant’s stance on morality may provide a
57
framework to understand a link between an all-encompassing ‘everyday morality’ and ASB.
That said, limited attention is given to defining what particular everyday behaviours are or
are not moral. This resonates with the government's reluctance to explicitly define those
behaviours which are and are not anti-social, as considered in Chapter 1.
In that way, it does not make sense to attempt to define which behaviours or actions are
morally good or bad, since there is no comprehensive moral code against which judgements
on behaviour can objectively be made. An alternative approach to understanding whether
actions are judged as morally wrong is the previously noted Categorical Imperative. Millie
(2016) mentions that one example of this would be that the powerless in society should not be
treated different to others in society. Neither should they be more heavily policed, as these
actions would not qualify to become a universal law from a Kantian perspective.
Moral psychology has adapted a Kantian approach in explaining how morality operates on an
individual basis. According to White (2012) Kantian moral psychology and ethics
inaugurates with the notion of autonomy. This is the capacity for rational people to make
choices in moral situations. This is made independent of any external factors or influence
such as social pressure and authority. Internal factors, such as personal desires and interests,
do not impact upon the individual’s rational decision making process in these moral
situations. White further contended that Kant’s notion of autonomy directly implicates the
ability (and responsibility) to make decisions in concordance with the moral law. The rational
reasoning process of everyday people derives from recognising and acknowledging that
everyone is entitled to be treated with equal dignity. However, one stipulation is that all
individuals must have this capacity of autonomous choice.
To comprehend what it is to be autonomous, in terms of what Kant described, the Kantian
moral philosopher Christine Korsgaard (2009: 108) stated; ‘to be autonomous... is to be
governed by principles of our own causality, principles that are definitive of your will’. The
emphasis of Kant’s approach to morality hinges on the belief that people have the ability to
resist their preferences and inclinations, as well as external forces, for them to fulfil their duty
and behave ethically. Although, White (2012) claimed that this does not ordain a choice as
bad or wrong, but the motivation behind that choice is important. If an act is performed that is
itself good, or compliant with duty, but the motivation is derived from personal interest, then
that act is not moral. Therefore, it is heteronomous and not autonomous, but an act that is
58
heteronomous is not necessarily immoral. In Kantian ethics ‘autonomous’ refers to the
capacity for an individual’s will to deliberate and self-govern their own moral law rather than
being obedient to an externally imposed law. ‘Heteronomous’ refers to an individual’s will
which is submitting itself to some other end; it is influenced by an external legislative force
and obedience to rules or actions derives from an outside source such as government law.
Similarly, Korsgaard (1996: 22) explained that, ‘when you are motivated autonomously, you
act on a law that you give to yourself; when you act heteronomously, the law is imposed on
you by means of a sanction’. Korsgaard (1996) provides the example of an individual paying
taxes heteronomously, to avoid further penalties, rather than paying taxes autonomously due
to it being the morally right thing to do. In relation to the present study, Kantian moral
psychology can be linked to the law and how this can help explain obedience or defiance to
the law.
Other research has also drawn from the Kantian model of moral psychology to help explain
the relationship between individual everyday morality and ASB. One such position was
advocated by Hart (1961) a legal philosopher who purported that individuals who internalise
the law comprehend legal rules and norms on a more in-depth level. To these individuals,
these laws are their laws instead of being an external force. Those who internalise the law
attribute moral value and worth to it. Individuals with an external view of the law perceive it
as constraints enforced by an external authority that serves only to prohibit behaviours via
laws. Conformity to laws against behaving criminally, or anti-socially, is greater when
individuals have an internal view of the law. Hart further contended that the morally perfect
individuals internalise laws as a restraint on their actions that should never be transgressed
despite any potential personal benefit from the act.
Conversely, an amoral individual might treat these laws as mere information in terms of costs
and benefits from behaving in a manner that would be in violation of these laws. These
external authorities would be interpreted as parallel to any other factor that would impact on
the decision to behave in accordance with the law or against it.
Kant’s perspective may also provide a framework to study whether behaviour that is deemed
anti-social is morally acceptable. For example, a typical act of environmental ASB, as
previously noted, is the common problem of littering within public spaces, and the
59
Categorical Imperative could provide a method for determining where this act stands as a
moral issue. If we take the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we would have to
devise a maxim that exemplifies the reason for littering being an immoral act, or determine if
it is morally permissible. The second step would be to then apply this maxim as a universal
law that all rational people would be able to comprehend and act accordingly, as you yourself
would also act in these circumstances. The next step would be to consider whether this
maxim is conceivable within the context of a world that would adhere to and be governed by
this maxim. Finally, we must determine whether we would rationally, ‘will’ this maxim to
become universal. If the logic in uninhibited and these steps are followed then the action is
morally permissible (or impermissible). From this, it could then be conceived whether the act
is morally right or morally wrong dependent on whether it derives from a CI. Of course, this
depends on all rationality coming to a similar conclusion, which may not be the case.
Kant claimed that moral goodness is not derived from good outcomes, but only comes from
actions that are motivated by good will. In other words, as noted, his approach was non-
consequentialist. There are two types of imperatives that explain what we ‘ought’ to do:
1. A Categorical Imperative (CI) is a moral obligation that is intuitive, immediate,
absolute and understood by all rational beings.
2. A Hypothetical Imperative (HI) is based on ‘what I want’ and the means to get what I
desire. Hypothetical Imperatives are ‘a posteriori’ and discovered through empirical
fact or experience.
It is the CI which tells us what we ‘ought to do’ in a situation irrespective of our personal
inclinations. To explain, Kant argues that we ought always do what our duty requires of us
and refrain from doing what duty forbids. Unlike the HI, the CI is an unconditional obligation
in the sense that it operates independent of will or desires. There were three formulations of
the CI:
1. Universalizability: the CI, noted previously, is ‘Always act in such a way that you
could will that the maxim of your act become a universal law’. This is the requirement
of ‘universalizability’ (could everyone act the same way).
60
2. Human dignity: The second formulation is ‘Always act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another as an end in itself
and never merely as a means’. This is a prerequisite of basic human dignity, where
you must not use people.
3. The Kingdom of Ends: The third formulation is ‘Always act in such a way that you
are both legislator and legislated in the Kingdom of Ends’. This entails reciprocating
behaviour in accordance with the moral law to others and yourself. Once all adhere to
the first and second formulation, they become members of the Kingdom of Ends.
(Johnson and Cureton, 2018)
In concordance with Kant, when making a decision an individual needs to ask ‘Would I want
everyone in the entire world in this situation to make the same decision as me?’ If the answer
is yes, and there is no contradiction in the logic, then essentially this could be made a
universal law. For example, within the ASB context, the belief is that littering is wrong.
Therefore, all should subconsciously recognize it is wrong to litter and refrain from doing it.
However, in today’s society some may treat themselves as the exception. Subconsciously
they may perceive that littering is wrong but choose to do so anyway. Or perhaps some would
be happy if everybody were litterers; or perhaps, simply at the moment of dropping litter,
they do not care. In a Kantian society one would always try to abide by the moral law. If the
conclusion is that this behaviour is indeed morally permissible and not immoral, the question
whether the act had any moral worth must be asked. According to Kant, an act has moral
worth (is morally good) if it adheres to three precepts:
firstly it must be in accordance with the moral law (obligatory or morally
permissible),
secondly it must not be performed from personal inclination, regardless of whether
the intention is selfish, benevolent or otherwise,
thirdly, it must be performed with respect for the moral law (Johnson and Cureton,
2018).
According to Gert (2004) there has always been sufficient justification for acting morally,
being rationally allowed. It has been claimed by Gert (2004) that it is extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to show that the reasons for acting morally always have as much force or
61
more force than the reasons for not acting morally. This has led some philosophers
(Frankena, 1966; Skorupski, 1993; Gert, 2004) to try to answer the question ‘Why be moral?’
rather than the question ‘Why act morally?’. Of these two questions, the first is about why an
individual should be a moral person. Why should they have the moral virtues, not why a
person should act morally in a particular situation?
In the context of the current thesis, it is important to consider who decides which acts of ASB
are immoral or moral, and how this is justified. These are questions that, if answered, would
help explain links between ASB and everyday morality. The next section addresses the social
contexts of everyday morality, relating to the acceptance or rejection of behaviours deemed
inappropriate, such as ASB.
Social contexts of everyday morality
A recent investigation by Carnes et al. (2015) has suggested that morality is embedded in a
variety of different social contexts. In their research they purported that morality facilitates
sociality between people. For example, when one interacts with strangers, colleagues, friends,
the community, or other members of society, morality plays a role in promoting sociality.
Morality helps individuals ‘navigate their social worlds’ (Carnes et al., 2015: 1). Similarly,
Haidt (2008) noted that morality is important for social life. He defined morality as an,
…interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved
psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate
selfishness and make social life possible. (2008: 70).
Carnes et al. (2015) claimed that research has often been negligent of this and instead
conveyed what people’s general beliefs are. Their study examined what moral principles
were perceived as being, as anchored in social contexts. Carnes et al. (2015) state that moral
interpretation varies, whether we are interacting with acquaintances, strangers, co-workers,
friends, family, civic society or the community. Due to this, Carnes et al. claim, morality
must be a far richer phenomenon than simply being the product of a set of rules, associations,
intuitive or abstract principles. What is highlighted is the potential relationship between
people’s every day, daily life and contexts and their perceptions of morality.
62
In relation to the current study, participants were recruited for focus group discussion on ASB
and everyday morality from areas selected based upon their level of deprivation (see Chapter
3). To some extent, this provides a glimpse of the associated contexts in these areas regarding
people’s experiences of ASB and how their perceptions of everyday morality are linked, or
not, to the level of deprivation in the area they are from. Similar to the Carnes et al. (2015)
study, the current exploration aimed to capture the distinct beliefs and views of the
participants regarding (everyday) morality, and it helps to illuminate the different types of
morality that are embedded in each group. The research presented in the forthcoming
chapters is an initial step aimed at understanding the socially embedded nature of morality in
what is perceived as anti-social. More specifically, this study investigates the extent to which
people believe that distinct moralities are embedded in different groupings (for example,
families, loosely associated strangers, and broad social categories). According to Carnes et al.
(2015) the idea that morality may be ‘socially embedded’ suggests that it is likely there may
be ‘some consensus in the way people understand the role of moral principles in distinct
social contexts’ (p.352). From this opinion, individuals are deemed to perceive different
moral principles in relation to the roles they play in different social situations. This is because
they fulfil different ‘context-specific’ functions, which Carnes et al. claim, function
differently in different social situations.
Carnes et al. (2015) further purported that people perceiving different moral principles know
they play various roles in different social contexts and this is due to the ‘context-specific’
roles which facilitate and regulate social life. Additionally, different types of groups provide
both opportunities and challenges to social actors, and moral principles are the vehicles
through which these individuals are able to navigate said social contexts.
To reinforce this contention, previous evidence from Clark and Mills (1979) reported that
norm reciprocity amongst ‘co-workers’ was expected. However, this was not the same for
communal relationships such as families. According to Clark and Mills this is due to the
different types of relationships themselves having different goals and priorities. As such,
individuals expect norms that are best in line with the corresponding goals pertaining to the
type of relationship - i.e. communal or exchange. Furthermore, these are relatively
independent of personal preferences, for both communal and exchange norms (Clark and
Mills, 1979).
63
In an extension of this, Carnes et al. (2015) contend that these moral principles are in fact
moral norms, but merely embedded in different types of social organisations. As norms are
‘shared beliefs that both guide and govern our behaviour in a specified context’ (Carnes et al.,
2015: 352), they claimed that the success of group existence is dependent upon having
functional, naturally understood norms, both moral and otherwise. Another point by Carnes et
al. was that, despite individuals who may differ in the extent to which they truly endorse
different norms, there may still be consensus regarding when different moral principles are
applicable in different social contexts. The problem Carnes et al. (2015) conveyed was that a
focus from other morality research on individual acts of morality may be obscuring research
investigating the idea that there may be a strong consensus of the moral norms which operate
in different group contexts. Therefore, Carnes et al. (2015) focused on the extent to which
individuals have a strong consensus in their beliefs regarding moral norms and principles that
are believed to regulate social life in various social contexts. The focus on consensus in their
research is important as they purport it may unveil something regarding how much people
perceive and agree that moral principles can be particular for different groups. They reported
that there was in fact a considerable level of consensus from their participants, that moral
principles are perceived to be operant in different settings, and thus morality is perceived as
‘socially shared’.
Everyday morality and society
According to Whitley 1976, (cited in Sitelman, 1977: 591) the morality of society is ‘the
practice of requiring or banning certain types of action and praising or blaming certain
dispositions of character’. This view may have implications for perceptions of crime or ASB.
Behaviours deemed acceptable or unacceptable - or moral and immoral - within a particular
society could be subject to the dominant perceptions and values of that society. According to
Millie (2011) there is a need to address the role value judgments play in the process of
criminalisation. He defined criminalisation as ‘the processes by which actions or omissions
become defined as crimes, or certain people or uses become defined as criminal or potentially
criminal.’ (Millie, 2011: 1). Millie further stated that behaviours which may be outside the
normal values of the majority may be too readily perceived as inappropriate thus leading to
them being criminalised. He noted that behaviour becomes unacceptable if it is perceived to
be causing sufficient harm to the victim. However, not all harmful behaviours may be
criminal (Millie, 2011) – nor for that matter, anti-social. The issue is that some behaviours
may be criminalised due to them causing offence, what Millie termed a ‘particularly
64
problematic and subjective sub-set of harm’ (2011: 3). A problem further arises when
determining what is offensiveness, and this is intrinsic to ‘disgust, obscenity and moral
(in)tolerance’ (Millie, 2011: 3). What may be perceived as morally offensive by society, or
by legal institutions, is not set in stone (Millie, 2011). In earlier research, Millie (2008) noted
that behavioural expectations, similar to perceived harm and offence, were context-specific.
Individual taste, aesthetics and subjective – or emotive – values all influence expectations of
behaviour. Millie further stated that individual tastes influence economic, aesthetic,
prudential and moral judgments - thus suggesting that what is acceptable is fluid, not fixed.
Just as behavioural expectations are not fixed, perhaps morality cannot be seen as a fixed
concept either – counter to the Kantian ethics outlined above. Instead it is something which
does (and must) adapt with the changes and actions within society (Herman, 2000). For
Herman, the biggest influence on morality is that of the political. Whiteley (1976, cited in
Sitelman, 1977: 593) distinguishes between the rules of society as dictated by political elites
and societal morality by arguing that the former are indeed imposed on the majority by a
minority, but that the latter have ‘the general support of members, in that most of them are in
favour of these rules being obeyed and these ideals pursued’. It may be that the powerful
minority set the moral agenda, but it is the majority who decide if this becomes part of the
fabric of society - that is, if it will become part of the common morality, or everyday morality
by which most people govern their own and others' behaviour. Whiteley’s view is
consequentialist and utilitarian in that he claims that the likelihood of some moral code being
accepted is dependent on the extent to which people can see its usefulness and their belief
that adherence to it will be beneficial to themselves and society. This is where beliefs can
differ in the sense of what morality is. For some, like Whiteley, what is considered moral can
be changed depending on need and desire. The opposite stance is that morality can only ever
be concerned with right and wrong, irrespective of the views of the individual or society.
Solomon and Higgins present this argument quite clearly when they say:
Morality is not just another aid to getting us what we want; it is entirely
concerned with right and wrong. And these considerations are above
tampering by any individual, no matter how powerful (2010: 26)
Following on from this then, it may be that, if morality is a fixed rather than fluid construct, it
can be displaced if it is no longer deemed necessary or relevant within a particular context.
65
Some philosophers, such as Whiteley (1976; 1982), view society as shaping morality, that is,
morality is fluid and comes to reflect the values of society - and in that way morality will
always exist. The contrary argument put forward by Hinde (2011) is that morality is fixed,
and that as society changes, morality does not adapt with it, until it finally becomes obsolete.
It is almost as if morality is an out of touch relic that has no place in modern society. In fact,
Hinde acknowledges that morality’s past association with religion may have resulted in it
being viewed as outdated or irrelevant in modern society. In Hinde’s paper, morality is seen
as an important aspect in society, something which is vital if it is to function in a positive,
peaceful manner.
How society contributes to defining morality is difficult to measure. Some attempts include
the study of behaviours which exist without any laws, explicit purpose or benefit, for
example, behaviours including being generous or displaying acts of kindness (Solomon and
Higgins, 2010). Often, acts of selflessness can be detrimental to the individual performing
them (such as giving up their time to help somebody) as well as to society (if a person helps
someone for free that could potentially be taking a paid job from somebody else). If society
dictates what is moral, and if acceptance of moral codes is dependent on their perceived
utilitarian benefit, it does not follow that those behaviours that do not follow these rules
would not only exist, but also be held in the high regard that they are. Whiteley (1982)
explains the existence of such behaviours by linking morality to conscience. Whiteley claims
that if a person has a conscience, they will act in a morally right way. Therefore, they will do
what is right, not what will bring the most benefit to them. To act otherwise, according to
Whiteley, means that one does not have a conscience.
This leads neatly onto consideration of what influences people to act in accordance with a
particular set of moral beliefs. Millie (2011) notes that such moral judgements are also of
interest to criminologists. For Whiteley (1982), the conviction that something is morally right
is justification enough to act in a certain way. Herman (2000) proposes that it is not enough to
simply ask what the morally right thing to do is. Instead, you must also ask why somebody
would choose to act in a way that is moral. Herman argues that it is more beneficial to
understand a person’s or society’s motives for acting in a certain manner, rather than seeking
out the moral compass that may or may not underlie their behaviour.
66
In summary, there are competing views on the relationship between morality and society. For
some, society determines what is deemed morally right and wrong, whilst for others morality
is a fixed concept which society can either have or not have: there can be no altered or
watered-down morality. Taken together, these approaches can go some way to explain why
there may be a perceived ‘moral decline’ in society (Millie, 2010). If society changes what is
moral and more and more behaviours become accepted by society, morality itself would be
‘shrinking’, giving the impression that morality is on the decline. Conversely, if less
behaviours are tolerated, there may be the sense that more and more people are immoral as
they continue to engage in an expanded list of censored behaviours, and therefore, morality is
again perceived to be declining. Alternatively, if morality is fixed, but no longer has a place
in society, those holding moral views will feel out of place and out of touch with a society
which does not seem to pay attention to moral values. This sense of alienation would also
result in fears that society has become a moral vacuum.
Alternatively, morality can be regarded as relativistic. For example, Millie (2016: 33)
described how a moral relativist perspective may state that morality and values can be ‘down
to personal opinion or taste’. According to Julia Driver (2007) one of the opposing
perspectives to moral universalism (the notion that some norms and values are universal, as
with the earlier mentioned Kantianism) is relativism. She claimed that moral relativism is the
belief that there are no universal standards of morality that can be applied to all contexts,
cultures and times. Millie (2016) noted that relativism appeals due to its appearance of being
tolerant towards everyone’s individual way of life. He comments that the issue with this is
that it can suggest tolerance of behaviours regarded as morally impermissible, such as
‘racism, slavery or rape.’ (Millie, 2016: 34). From this, it was concluded that it is possible
some universal truths do exist that may be applicable to everyone. There is flexibility for
interpretation on moral truths beyond relativism, such as individual and societal perceptions
(Millie, 2016). The next section will consider the link between perceptions of ASB and
everyday morality.
Linking perceptions of ASB to everyday morality
67
Accounts of morality implicate society as both influencing and being influenced by morality.
The types of behaviour perceived as acceptable or unacceptable within society seem to
change over time and location. It is logical to infer from this that everyday morality and
judgements about what is and is not moral also change over time and location. Furthermore,
if this is the case, we can deduce that what is considered social or anti-social will also change
over time and location, as everyday morality within and between societies shifts. In this way,
behaviours that were once seen as morally good, or at least morally acceptable or tolerable,
can become viewed as no longer morally good and, consequently, be branded as 'anti-social'.
The rise in ASB in popular imagination does not necessarily mean that more people are
giving up on society; rather it could mean that everyday morality is becoming more rigid, less
forgiving. Behaviours that were once accepted are no longer accepted, and are regarded as
immoral. For example, Yunxiang Yan (2014) in an examination of immorality reported that
behaviours, such as animal cruelty, which were once more widely accepted are now
perceived as immoral. Yet, conversely, pre-marital sex has become widely accepted as
normal, or at the very minimum amoral. The situation is not straightforward. Whilst it might
appear that more people are engaging in anti-social or immoral behaviour, in fact the level of
behaviour has remained the same, and it is simply the classification of that behaviour that has
changed. The problem then is not a lack of, or reduction in morals, rather it is the changing
number of behaviours regarded as immoral and therefore intolerable.
Within criminology the issue of ASB and tolerance has been highlighted (e.g. Bannister et al.
2006; Millie, 2006; Mackenzie et al. 2010). According to Millie (2006) what is regarded as
anti-social may be specific to certain individuals or groups. Even minor uncivil or rude
behaviours could be construed as anti-social. Millie (2006) reported that participants in a
study of ASB had all, to differing extents, experienced ASB, although what was considered
as ASB varied. The suggestion is that ASB is subjective. If perceptions of what ASB is vary
from one person to another then it may be an issue of intolerance towards a specific
behaviour rather than it simply being anti-social. This argument can be also used to explain
why ASB appears to be a predominantly 'poor persons' problem – as noted in the previous
chapter - and why acts that could be regarded as immoral are not always classified as anti-
social. If everyday morality is both shaped by and is a reflection of society, and if the people
who shape society have a particular agenda in mind, it is logical that certain behaviours will
be censored whilst others will be encouraged. As noted, Herman (2000) emphasised the
68
impact of the political on setting the moral agenda. If politicians want to encourage business
and investment, or if they tend to support the status quo, it makes sense that the behaviour of
these groups will be protected and more likely regarded as moral. Conversely, the behaviour
of people seen as a 'threat' to the political ideal, for example those who make less of a
contribution, will be censored in an attempt to both reduce the behaviour, and to raise the
status of the political values the government is expounding.
Whiteley (1976, cited in Sitelman, 1977) argued that a moral code would only be accepted by
the majority if there was consensus over its usefulness and benefit to individuals and society
as a whole. This might account for why governments and media are keen to demonise certain
parts of society and behaviour. By doing so, they create a 'threat' to the majority's way of life,
thereby making the majority more susceptible to agree to moral codes that could protect them
from this threat. Further support for the notion of demonising behaviours that precedes the
enforcement of moral codes was found by Cohen (1972). Cohen contended that creating a
moral panic and generating ‘folk devils’ (believed to have caused the potential threat)
facilitates the regulation of behaviour through new legislation. This enables the censoring of
behaviour not in line with the majority, for instance through linking ASB and morality via
creating a ‘moral panics’.
A link between ASB and everyday morality also explains why ASB cannot be neatly defined
as a list of behaviours, and why ASB must 'be seen' to be recognised. In short, the
classification of a behaviour as anti-social is determined by whether it is perceived as moral
or not. Perceptions of morality are fluid and change with time and location. To know if a
behaviour is anti-social, one must first know if it is perceived as moral or immoral, and this
can only be decided within the circumstances in which the behaviour occurs. Therefore,
behaviour can only be labelled as anti-social once the context in which the behaviour has
arisen has been assessed, and a moral judgement passed. To attempt to define all the
circumstances under which every behaviour would and would not be deemed anti-social
would be an impossible, if not futile, task. It therefore can appear logical that behaviours are
instead individually judged as anti-social or not, as and when they occur. A reason to favour a
more fluid concept of ASB is precisely because it is so closely tied with morality – assuming
conceptions of what is moral are also fluid.
Conclusions
69
This chapter began by introducing and discussing the concept of an everyday, or common,
morality. It was reported that throughout the history of moral philosophy the term ‘common’
morality or ‘common-sense’ morality has been utilised to reference everyday norms and
values. Morality has been traced back to a broad spectrum of principles that underlie our
common, everyday views and beliefs. Subsequently, it was reported that whilst a sense of
common morality has been the foundation of moral philosophy, it also has been heavily
involved in discussions of politics, education, law and behaviour. The focus then progressed
onto civility, and how this may provide a link between everyday morality and ASB.
Perceptions of everyday civility have been reported to influence an individual’s moral stance
regarding their concept of everyday morality. It was then suggested that everyday morality
can provide a framework to understand how individuals experience their everyday social
world. The evidence of moral relativism provided a platform to consider how everyday
contexts and cultural beliefs underlie our moral systems.
The current research contends that investigating the underpinning perceptions of what
everyday morality means to people could help us understand the moral aspects of ASB. For
example, what perceived moral codes do individuals attribute to ASB perpetrators? What
moral standards and norms affect whether ASB is perceived as immoral or not? It was
suggested that morality may be socially embedded. Furthermore, there may be an underlying
consensus regarding the role of moral principles within certain contexts. Individuals may also
perceive different moral principles within particular contexts dependent on the role they are
playing in a social situation. At which point a behaviour or action becomes deemed immoral
was not clear. Similarly, in the context of ASB, it is not clear who decides which behaviours
are anti-social, and morally ‘bad’.
The relationship between morality and society was considered next. There are competing
views on how society and morality interact. If society changes what is moral and more
behaviours become accepted by society, morality may appear to be ‘shrinking’, perhaps
suggesting that morality itself is declining. This chapter then considered morality from a
deontological approach, namely by consideration of Kantian ethics. It was noted that Kant’s
perspective suggested morality is normative, deriving from a set of duties whereby people
adhere to rules. Rather than the consequences being the central concern of an action, it is the
rightness or wrongness that is important. The paramount moral obligation to all people was
termed by Kant as the ‘Categorical Imperative’. The CI is, in essence, a moral law consisting
70
of three key formulations. If an action passes each of these then it is a moral obligation. In the
current study, Kantian Ethics provided a framework to examine how ASB may be understood
as immoral or moral. Littering, theft and borrowing were provided as examples of applying
Kant’s approach. However, there may be limitations of adopting a Kantian perspective. For
example, according to MacIntyre (1981: 67), ‘natural and human rights… are fictions’ and
obligations deriving from duty may neglect other ethical considerations - for example, the
influence of good character and virtues rather than focusing on obligations and rights as
Kantian ethics focuses on.
The link between ASB and everyday morality was suggested to provide an answer as to why
ASB cannot be lucidly delineated within a list of behaviours. Whilst a Kantian approach to
ASB might be attractive due to its simplicity, the everyday lived reality of ASB might mean
that understandings of ASB could be context specific; understandings of morality might also
be context specific thus both can be more fluid. The importance of context might also provide
an answer as to why ASB cannot be delineated to a finite list of behaviours. It is a matter of
perception. ASB might only be considered as such once the context in which the behaviour
occurred has been considered. Similarly, the moral aspects of the behaviour may only be
assessable once the circumstances surrounding the action are considered. A moral judgment
could then be contrived. Thus, moral judgments may be influenced by individual and group
perceptions of behavioural expectations.
Chapter 3.
71
ASB, moral regulation and responsibilisation
Introduction
This chapter considers the relationship between ASB, moral regulation and responsibilisation.
It explores what moral regulation is, and how this is practiced through government efforts to
tackle ASB. The chapter also addresses how these concepts have been linked through UK
political discourse, legislation and concepts such as civility. Subsequently this chapter
discusses the media and moral panics as factors influencing perceptions. The role of self-
regulation and responsibilisation in strategies aimed at tackling ASB and incivility are then
considered. The idea of a ‘law-abiding majority’, and the reasons why an individual may or
may not adhere to standards of behaviour and the law, will precede talk of moral decline and
respect. Examples of atypical ASB in groups other than the usual suspects – the young, poor
or deprived - and how these may violate codes of civility and social norms are then
considered.
ASB and moral regulation
As previously highlighted, a link between everyday morality and ASB has been conveyed in
politics, where there has been an understanding of ASB as being ‘fundamentally caused by a
lack of respect for other people’ (Home Office, 2003: 7). This notion guided New Labour
policy interventions built on the idea that there needs to be a ‘cultural shift’ (Home Office,
2003: 6) to restore a ‘sense of respect’ within British society (Blair, 2005). New Labour’s
Respect and Responsibility White Paper (Home Office, 2003) suggested that civility must be
maintained by, as well as being the responsibility of, all members of society. As ASB was
framed as a lack of respect, interventions to (re)create morally-sound and respectful cultures
were aimed at the liberal governance of self-regulating individuals.
This was to be achieved through a framework of desired ethical conduct (Rose, 1999). This
framework would involve enhancing civility and respect through establishing new contracts
of responsibility for citizens. These would be for themselves, their communities and between
72
the government and citizens. The process of achieving these aims through governmental
strategies has been linked to the concept of ‘moral regulation’, a term often utilized in the
realms of economics and politics. For example, according to Hunt (1999: 17), ‘moral
regulation is a discrete mode of regulation existing alongside and interacting with political
and economic modes of regulation’. According to Hunt (1999) moral regulators are social
agents who reject behaviour they consider immoral. They seek to control the behaviour of
others through legal or other methods. Moral regulation also involves changing the behaviour
and identity of perpetrators, which may indirectly require that those who regulate such
behaviour also change their own. Others have described this as a revolutionary process that
permeates through the methods governments use to exert their identity and instil this in its
citizens:
We call this moral regulation: a project of normalizing, rendering natural,
taken for granted, in a word ‘obvious’, what are in fact ontological and
epistemological premises of a particular and historical form of social order.
Moral regulation is coextensive with state formation, and state forms are
always animated and legitimated by a particular moral ethos (Corrigan and
Sayer 1985: 4).
Traditional examples of perceived ‘immoral’ behaviours that moral regulators have focused
on pertain towards alcohol consumption, gambling and sexual promiscuity. Hunt (1999)
concluded that moral panics have an alternative role as an extreme method of social control
through moral regulation, especially during times when there is a perceived moral or cultural
crisis.
Young (1971) claimed that moral panics refer to the near hysterical and exaggerated reactions
of society to events which challenge the traditional norms and values of a society. Similarly,
Cohen (1972: 1) described a situation of ‘moral panic’ as follows:
A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined
as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized
and stereotypical fashion by the mass media.
73
He further contended that an important process in the creation of a moral panic is the
demonisation of ‘folk devils’ by the media - those perceived as the source of the social issue.
This evokes an irrational fear created within society and amplifies the issue until it becomes a
systemic concern. The consequences of this then provoke a legal or social shift aimed at
tackling the problem (Bearfield, 2008). According to Miller and Kitzinger (1998, as cited in
Rohloff and Wright, 2010) moral panics have been utilized as an umbrella term to cover
everything from working mothers to single mothers, ecstasy, guns, pornography on the
internet and state censorship. Others have argued that moral panics are used as an instrument
to expose the underlying processes which may precipitate the creation of social issues
(Rohloff and Wright, 2010).
Moral panics can operate through the media, to reinforce prevalent conceptions of what is
moral behaviour whenever the accepted standards are challenged (Denham, 2008). According
to McRobbie and Thornton (1995) moral panics aid news agencies through their propensity
to create emotional dimensions in otherwise mundane stories. In fact, it has been claimed that
the more deviant the people or issues are, the more liable they are to be included in the media
content, and thus there is increased likelihood of being stereotyped (Shoemaker and Reese,
1996). Therefore, critics of the media’s role in assisting moral panics contend that they create
an inaccurate portrayal of the societal threat or those considered ‘folk devils’ (Shoemaker and
Reese, 1996). Jewkes (2004) has suggested that Cohen’s (1972) conception of a moral panic
is biased towards younger subcultures within society and places too much emphasis on the
media’s role rather than the deviant behaviour. Despite such criticism, Jewkes stated that
moral panics should, be ‘regarded in the way that Cohen intended – as a means of
conceptualizing the lines of power in society and the ways in which we are manipulated into
taking some things too seriously and other things not seriously enough’ (Jewkes, 2004: 85).
It is the use of the word ‘manipulation’ by Jewkes (2004) that is important in understanding
possible links between ASB, morality and political and media reaction regarded as a moral
panic. In relation to ASB, one example of moral panic and resultant moral regulation is the
political and media portrayal of hoodie-wearing young people. According to Hayward and
Yar (2006) ‘chav’ fashion of the late 1990s and early 2000s was characterised as including
the hooded top, baseball caps, trainers and sports attire. Hoodies were symbolic of the
stereotypical young ASB perpetrator. This became a symbol of an assumed youth moral
decline and preceded governmental attempts to moralise the activities of the British youth
74
(Coleman, 2005). The moral panic and public anxiety regarding ASB were used to justify
legislative endeavours to ameliorate Britain’s perceived moral decline through tackling the
‘hoodie’ and, consequently, ASB (Hier, et al., 2011). This belief that ASB was related to
‘hoodies’ and particular items of clothing was an association utilised within the media as a
tool through which hoodie wearing young people could be blamed for ASB and crime (Hier
et al., 2011).
Waiton (2008) has claimed that modern politics itself has instigated an era where anxiety and
worry about, what he called ‘amoral panics’ are rife. This has led to further moralisation to
manage ASB. The suggestion of ‘amoral’ politics and the over-enforcement of moral
regulation to serve the ruling elite has been previously noted (Hall et al., 1978). Some have
also claimed that moral panics are simply an instrument which enables the elite classes of
society to obscure the underlying crises in the government. Hall et al. (1978) proposed that
moral panics are engineered simply to avert public attention away from a specific ‘moral
evil’. Instead, other moral concerns or issues are construed to be a serious threat towards
societal values and morals. Subsequently, these concerns then become the focus of regulatory
action.
The perceived threat of ASB was one such issue that was subject to regulatory action aimed
at eliminating this threat to the moral fabric of society. Whilst it has been maintained that
moral regulation projects are aimed at the entire spectrum of activities perceived as risks to
society, it has been acknowledged that ‘no age group is more associated with risk in the
public imagination than that of ‘youth’’ (Thompson, 1998: 43). The youth of Britain are
actually identified, not just as an at risk group within society, but as one of the primary
sources of risk or menace towards society (Cohen, 1972; Burney, 2002). There have been
myriad attempts to regulate the behaviour of young people, resulting in a plethora of hybrid
moral-legal devices (Hier et al., 2011). The belief was that youth (mis)behaviour in public
spaces could be controlled through the regulation of dress codes and behaviours.
When New Labour’s Respect Agenda was announced (Respect Task Force, 2006) the use of
language such as ‘disrespect’ and ‘decency’ by government, alongside representations of
hoodie-wearing young people within the media, has been described as indicative of a
breakdown of moral regulation (Hier et al., 2011). It is evident that calls for respect through
moral regulation further link the concept of morality to agendas on ASB. The next section
75
focuses on attempts to enhance responsibilisation and promote shared norms and standards
for individuals to live by.
Self-regulation and responsibilisation
According to Haworth and Manzi (1999) in the 1990s responsibilisation strategies were
increasingly being adopted within UK housing management to promote moral norms of
behaviour and self-conduct. The main objective of such methods was to instil these values in
citizens and increase individual responsibility where members of society enhance social
cohesion through a shared sense of identity within their communities. Flint (2002) claimed
the increasing use of responsibilisation strategies reflected a broad trend aimed at promoting
a common set of values for members of society to live by (Flint, 2002). This would,
theoretically, enable them to self-regulate their behaviours (Kearns and Forrest, 2000). The
link between responsibilisation strategies and morality becomes evident when responsibility
is defined in terms of the need to adhere to moral norms of behaviour and self-conduct (Rose,
1996). In relation to ASB, it was the belief that this strategy would challenge ‘immoral
norms’ to tackle ASB in areas such as social housing. In these areas the aim was to encourage
tenants to take responsibility, ensuring their own and their children’s moral values and
behaviour are within such shared codes (Flint, 2002). Once more the link between ASB and
morality is exemplified through this belief that morality is something to be infused within
society through self-regulation.
However, Flint (2002: 631) also acknowledged that, despite these strategies being based on
the idea of self-regulation, they are nonetheless an attempt to impose norms and make people
conform to ‘an idealistic definition of the identity of wider society’. Others have reported that
it was assumed that everyday morality could be enforced and people could be made to be
more respectful (Millie, 2010). Millie (2010) further contended that government-led
civilizing initiatives may only be productive if the government follows its own example.
Papps (1998) criticized such attempts to counteract ASB, claiming that the governmental
concern about how poor people conduct themselves is selective as there is no comparable
scrutiny of the behaviour of people who are not poor.
Despite such criticism, the governmental and political focus remains on tackling ASB
through the enforcement of legislation and the enforcement of everyday morality. This is
76
particularly geared towards those labelled as an ‘underclass’, and women and young people
have experienced the brunt of such methods (Millie, 2010). Critics have also taken issue with
the governmental emphasis that respect is something which ‘cannot be learned, purchased or
acquired, it can only be earned’ (Home Office, 2006b: 30). The implication here is that those
who have not ‘earned’ respect do not deserve to be treated with respect. Somerville (2009)
stated that, at the most basic level, respect requires equality and mutuality, but government
policy initiatives on ‘respect’ do not address the lack of equality, such as that between the
government and its citizens.
An alternative approach to promoting self-regulation may be the use of moral education to
tackle ASB and incivility. According to Taboada (1998: 1) the best method to tackle crime
and ASB is to ‘embark on an educational process to help people confront and resolve issues’.
From this perspective, Taboada suggests that moral education can provide the context for
crime prevention policy. He claims that opposing views that emerge whenever personal
interest is balanced against collective interest can be resolved through educational processes
involving moral education. By teaching social and cultural values it may be possible to
counteract the friction between competing views of behaviour. This suggestion appears to be
reminiscent of attempts at promoting ‘tolerance’ amongst people. This preventative approach
would be based upon the principle of ‘moral worth’. The concept of moral worth is in turn
influenced by the formulations of each autonomous moral person which they develop through
interaction within their community. The practical application of this moral education involves
multiple methods; Taboada notes the following value-forming processes as being intrinsic to
moral education:
1)…encouraging self-knowledge and moral consciousness within situations of
understanding and dialogue ("classification of values," "exercises of self-
expression," "discussion of moral dilemmas," "recognition of alternatives and
preview of consequences," "debates," and various types of "analysis of
values"), and 2) those seeking attitudinal change, as well as an end to
behaviours that cause physical or mental harm, together with those that are
antisocial. The process of self-regulation of the individual is the constant
theme. (Taboada, 1998: 2)
77
Through this approach, it may be possible to promote values, behaviours and standards that
increase responsibilisation amongst those who are perceived to behave anti-socially.
In conclusion, government attempts at self-regulation have typically tried to promote
responsibility amongst individuals in communities and create shared values. However, these
interventions primarily have been directed at the poor and the so-called underclass. The
respect that the UK government has aimed to instil in these communities has been found
lacking in terms of reciprocal respect from government. Due to a lack of scrutiny on those
who are not usual suspects for moral regulation strategies, there is inequality and bias present.
An alternative approach would by promoting moral education amongst those who are
perceived to behave anti-socially, irrespective of where they live or what their income is.
Promoting moral education amongst anti-social individuals - whoever they are - may help
offenders to self-regulate and increase their own sense of responsibility.
The ‘law abiding’ majority
Tyler and Darley (1999) have claimed that individuals are internally motivated to follow
rules. This motivation is the feeling of obligation or responsibility to conduct oneself
according to what is considered appropriate. The implication is that a ‘civic’ culture could be
created where most people abide by laws. This enables the regulation of behaviours and
maintenance of social control whilst developing social values. Tyler and Darley (1999)
further acknowledged that morality and the law are inextricably linked in terms of attempting
to build a law-abiding society - if the law and the public’s beliefs of morality are consistent.
The link may be idiosyncratic, however, and therefore it would be difficult to apply one
understanding of morality to all.
The concept of a law-abiding majority has been described as ‘an imagined connection
between the elected and electorate’ (Millie, 2016: 85). The narrative of a law-abiding
majority in political discourse is reduced to representing only those who are believed to work
hard, maintain standards of behaviour and adhere to society’s laws (Millie, 2016). Thus, the
narrative is intolerant of individuals who are believed to be not behaving in accordance with
the law. Millie claimed that the notion of having a law-abiding majority is ‘mythical’ (2016:
85). In fact, those individuals who may regard themselves as being law-abiding citizens could
be equally guilty of ‘breaking rules, be they breaches of law or other normative standards’
78
(2016: 85). For example, fraudulent tax behaviours or driving through red lights are also
breaches of social norms (Karstedt and Farrell, 2006). Thus, it would appear that other groups
within society, rather than just the poor or marginalised, could be guilty of breaking the rules
of society or behaving anti-socially. For example, Millie noted examples of both politicians
and corporations ‘stretching the limits’ (2016: 86) of the rules. He cited cases of the
parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009, the Volkswagen emissions scandal of 2015 and the
global banking crisis of 2008. These exemplify how other members or groups of society can
push the moral boundaries and laws to the edge. It may therefore follow that ASB is also
prevalent amongst the so-called ‘law-abiding majority’ within society.
To give an example, Halla and Schneider (2014) have investigated the link between benefit
fraud, tax evasion and morality through studying the social norms claimed to be responsible
for cheating on the government. These social norms, named Benefit Morale and Tax Morale,
are conceptualised as ‘the motivation an individual has to abstain from cheating on the state
through tax evasion or benefit fraud’ (Halla and Schneider, 2014: 413). Halla and Schneider
adopted a utilitarian approach and contended that the social norms of Tax Morale and Benefit
Morale were determined by ‘prices’ (i.e. the cost of acting morally). The citizens who have
more opportunity to cheat rationalise it through developing an attitude that it is a trivial
offense. Therefore, individuals self-servingly adjust their moral values. This study linked
everyday norms to economic factors (the ‘price’ of cheating) and to an individual’s
motivation to comply with the law. It concluded that social norms are determinants of
individual economic behaviour.
The subjective definition of ASB may be so broad that economic crimes such as tax
evasion/avoidance could potentially be construed as causing annoyance, nuisance or
harassment to other members of society and are therefore anti-social. An increased tax burden
caused by tax evasion may even be linked to ASB if members of society perceived this
causing economic nuisance or annoyance. Other types of harm, such as environmental
pollution or noise, can have dire consequences for individuals and communities with
repercussions extending to both physical and emotional harm. According to South (1998, as
cited in Croall, 2009) the accumulation of even micro-scale local pollution incidents can
precipitate damage from a moderate to a devastating scale and on their conditions of life.
Even if some offences do not have an emphatic impact, physically or otherwise, they can be
conceptualised as a threat to people’s quality of life (Croall, 2004, as cited in Croall, 2009).
79
Noise pollution, dirty business operations, breaches of food regulations, selling unsafe or
counterfeit goods or invading householders’ privacy via aggressive marketing could all
equally be described as anti-social or uncivil behaviour. If ASB, low-level or otherwise, can
impact on another individual’s quality of life, then these wider crimes and harms could also
be conceptualised as being anti-social.
Karstedt and Farrall (2006) have suggested that individuals have a selective regard for legal
codes and that they morally differentiate between laws, for instance, that cycling on the
pavement is (usually) illegal, but - understandably - is not treated with the same moral
contempt as committing a murder. Morality is not absent, but individuals’ moral regard for
the law is influenced by a sophisticated reasoning process dependent upon their own
circumstances. Karstedt and Farrall (2006) concluded that this may be indicative of how
issues such as ASB, crime and incivility are influenced by both everyday morality and laws.
The issue here is people’s idiosyncratic understandings of what constitutes appropriate, moral
behaviour. Understanding the link between everyday moral choices and ASB could be more
complex due to the heterogeneous standards of moral behaviour that each individual
maintains.
Despite the issue of adherence to laws on an individual level (being dependent on individual
beliefs on moral codes) it has been argued that laws must not be enforced through coercive
measures. Instead they should build on a common understanding of the social values of
individuals (Tyler and Darley, 1990), a sentiment shared by Millie (2010) who takes the
position that ‘enforcing respect’ is a strange notion. Further warning about trying to enforce
respect was conveyed by Sennett (2003: 260) who stated that, ‘[t]reating people with respect
cannot occur simply by commanding it should happen. Mutual recognition has to be
negotiated’. Sennett (2003) suggested that respect at the most fundamental level is
understanding the needs of others within society and encouraging mutuality. Conversely, the
New Labour government’s interpretation of respect was biased towards what was labelled as
unacceptable behaviour and the punishment of this behaviour - as well as trying to enforce
respect (and, as noted, therefore not reciprocating that very same respect they are striving to
attain). An approach which promotes social values and a common understanding such as that
suggested by Tyler and Darley (1990) is a far cry from the coercive measure adopted by New
Labour’s Respect initiative.
80
Talk of moral decline and respect
It has been claimed that social values, such as the aforementioned respect, in Britain are
changing rapidly under the perception that there is a widespread decline in morals and values
(Browne, 2008). Conversely, however, it has been argued that there have been many moral
improvements within Britain since the 1950s, with measurable constructs such as income,
health, tolerance and fairness in society greatly increasing (Browne, 2008). Some have
suggested that this is part of a broader civilizing process (Elias, 2000; Powell and Flint,
2009). Powell and Flint (2009) adopted Norbert Elias’s (2000) framework to understand
governmental ASB interventions within the UK. Briefly, the Civilising Process is continuous
and ‘represents a change in human conduct and sentiment located with broader processes of
social development’ (Powell and Flint, 2009: 161). The key theme of this process is the
interconnection between society and the individual. Through intense state regulation, a
counter-intuitive decivilising process can occur. Societal responses to ASB and crime
interventions can construct differences between ‘elites and “targeted” populations’ (Powell
and Flint, 2009: 175). In turn, this can act as a form of social control where attempts to tackle
a perceived incivility and a lack of respect lead to decivilizing ‘justice mechanisms’. For
example, naming and shaming may lead to social stigmatization rather than rehabilitation
(Powell and Flint, 2009). Naming and shaming measures entail offender details being
publicized by government organisations, local authorities, social landlords, police, or others
(Powell and Flint, 2009). Powell and Flint (2009) also claimed that the Respect Agenda
contained decivilising elements through penal legislation. Rather than tackling ASB and
incivility, the promotion of civility through such measures can, paradoxically, act as a
divisive tool. This in itself can be decivilising and lead to exclusion, where only the elite in
the hierarchy are served (Boyd, 2006).
To summarise, it is evident that the concepts of morality, respect and ASB have been
intrinsically linked through political rhetoric and legislation. The belief system in place was
that introducing laws which could regulate morals and behaviours may reduce disrespect and
thus decrease ASB. This could be achieved through promoting shared common values to
combat incivility. However, the relationship between morality and ASB did not appear fully
understood in terms of the governmental response to this issue, particularly the lack of
understanding in conceptualising respect and attempts to socially engineer this into society
through enforcement.
81
Civility and social norms
The link between civil cooperation and strong social norms is underpinned by an inherent
awareness of other members of society (Bannister and O’Sullivan, 2013). This awareness has
been described as a necessary cultural and social expression that needs more stimulation. In
turn, this would create more meaningful social interactions that can promote civility
(Bannister and O’Sullivan, 2013). Bannister and O’Sullivan (2013) claimed that, if others are
to be perceived as a welcome presence by the majority, then there must be a willingness to
adjust, or be accepting towards, minorities within society. This acceptance has a foundation
based on civility and, according to Boyd (2006: 863), civility ‘denotes a sense of standing or
membership in the political community with its attendant rights and responsibility’. He
further contended that this understanding of civility generates the notion of an, ‘active and
affirmative moral relationship between persons. Being civil is a way of generating moral
respect and democratic equality’ (p.863). From this perspective, Boyd views civility as a
‘moral obligation borne out of an appreciation of human equality’ (p.863).
From this understanding, civility is explicitly linked to morality and the underlying notion
that acceptance and tolerance of others are prerequisites to the creation of civility. In fact,
Boyd (2006) describes civility as a type of moral disposition that derives from moral equality,
or a moral obligation that all members of society owe to strangers. It has also been
intrinsically linked by Boyd (2006) with the political community, based on the relationship
between the need for political equality between those who are the ruling elite and those who
are ruled. In relation to ASB, it is these notions of civility, respect, and morality that have
been imbued within government initiatives to tackle this perceived social malaise.
Shklar (1998, as cited in Boyd, 2006) has described the typical vices that she claims are
symptomatic of a democratic society, termed ‘undemocratic behaviours’. These include
behaviours such as hypocrisy, arrogance, snobbery and condescension; all regarded as subtle
forms of disrespect and incivility. Shklar hinted that these subtle forms of incivility could be
linked to political crimes and exclusion. These minor instances of incivility affect the kinds
of moral relationships that can lead to more extreme instances of uncivil behaviour and would
include insults, racial slurs, differential treatment and other behaviour that can pave the way
for further dehumanisation (Shklar, 1998, as cited in Boyd, 2006) – all conceivable anti-
social actions.
82
The importance of understanding the link between everyday morality and ASB is further
underpinned by individual factors, for example personality, which have been reported as
influential in whether someone behaves anti-socially or not (Miller and Lynam, 2001). Miller
and Lynam (2001) claimed that personality is important for decision-making processes and
self-regulation of behaviour and can alter that very moment a behaviour occurs.
To summarise, a link between social connectedness and civil cooperation may be improved
through more awareness of other members of society. Promoting civility may help to boost
civil cooperation and strengthen society. In turn, it may be possible to promote notions of
respect and tolerance through increased awareness of other citizens’ values or norms.
Previous government policy has attempted to tackle the perceived social malaise of an
assumed moral decline and lack of respect. The link between everyday morality and ASB has
often been discussed through notions of civility, respect and values. However, individual
factors such as personality could play a role - a role not acknowledged by government
initiatives to tackle ASB, nor attempts to elucidate the underlying causes.
Conclusions
Many factors may influence why a behaviour is perceived as morally wrong or not. ‘Moral
panics’ are an important factor in perceptions of crime, fear and morality. Threats to societal
values, norms and interests are presented in a ‘stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass
media’ (Cohen, 1972: 1) that amplifies the public concern. Consequently, a change in legal
policy, or a social shift, are prompted by the widespread systemic concern until the problem
is tackled. ASB, Self-regulation and responsibilisation were discussed and it was reported
that there have been many attempts by the UK government to promote self-regulation of
behaviours such as being civil and instilling shared values of respect. Despite this, some
mechanisms were one-sided, lacked mutuality and were directed at specific groups within
society. Moral education was discussed as a potential alternative to penal strategies.
Atypical examples of ASB perpetrated by the assumed law-abiding majority were then
considered, with behaviours such as tax evasion potentially falling under the rubric of ASB.
Furthermore, ASB may be present in other members or groups of society beyond the poor
and lower classes – including the so-called law abiding majority. In order to tackle the moral
83
aspects of ASB, improving social cohesion and civil cooperation may help improve positive
social standards amongst communities. Previous government initiatives have utilised punitive
and enforcement-based measures to tackle ASB, such as via the Respect Agenda (Respect
Task Force, 2006). Promoting tolerance and mutual respect may help tackle the underlying
moral and individual aspects of ASB.
84
Chapter 4.
Methodology
Rationale
A high proportion of research investigating crime or intrinsically related areas has used
quantitative methods (Sherman and Strange, 2004). It has been argued that in criminology,
whilst qualitative research approaches may be under-utilized, they are relevant for enabling
more in-depth data to be collected (Miner-Romanoff, 2012). According to Smith et al. (2009)
qualitative methods of inquiry allow consideration of the complex and variable nature of
criminality, including individual and social contexts. In this regard, Miner-Romanoff (2012)
has claimed that Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) can be particularly useful.
She reported from her own investigation that IPA allows researchers to include and reflect on
their own experiences in conjunction with uncovering the underpinning decisions and
motivations of criminal offenders, whilst also eliciting a more in-depth and profound
response from participants. This non-positivist perspective leads to significant improvements
in other areas. Miner-Romanov (2012) has cited examples including: informing more
effective crime control strategies; enlightening the understanding of offenders’ cognitive
processes; and enhancing the generation of more effective policy aimed at increasing
prevention of crime and lowering recidivism. The phenomenological tradition has been
recommended to encourage individuals involved in crime to explain the underlying
mechanisms which led to their criminal behaviour (Seidman, 2006).
IPA is informed by phenomenology, hermeneutics and ideography (Callery et al., 2015).
According to Callery et al. (2015: 63) phenomenology describes ‘the “what” and “how” of
individuals’ experienced phenomena’. Hermeneutics refers to a theory of interpretation that
focuses on the meaning of textual information, for example language that divulges the
intentions and context of a speaker (Smith et al., 2013). Ideography refers to the ‘details and
thorough analysis of small cases’ (Callary et al., 2015). How these three positions influence
the IPA method is effectively described by Callary et al., who stated:
85
IPA is idiographic because a detailed analysis of one case occurs before
moving onto the next. Secondly, IPA is inductive, meaning research questions
are broadly constructed to allow for unanticipated themes to emerge. Interplay
between induction and deduction in data analysis may exist; however, the
inductive approach takes precedence. Thirdly, results are discussed using
existing literature, creating an interrogative element… (Callary et al., 2015:
64)
The current study adopted this approach as it combined the detailed analysis of the
ideography whilst being able to ‘allow for unanticipated themes to emerge’ (Callary et al.,
2015: 64). A discussion grounded in existing literature could then be conducted, allowing
both inductive and deductive aspects of the IPA analysis to interact. This revealed thematic
narratives that were able to be linked to already established research on ASB and everyday
morality.
Bloomberg and Volpe (2012) suggested that qualitative research enables the researcher to
gain the participants’ views and perspectives of the research, and promotes an in-depth,
detailed understanding of a social situation. According to Chamberlain (2013: 53) individuals
are ‘assumed to create their social worlds by organizing their own understandings of it and
giving it meaning’. Furthermore, a researcher can draw on their ‘common sense knowledge to
aid their research and help develop empathic understanding of another person's world view’
as they seek to ‘construct a thick descriptive narrative account of it’ (Chamberlain, 2013: 53).
Moreover, Chamberlain suggested that qualitative researchers tend to highlight the
importance of social context and seek to intuitively build an understanding of causality in
terms of the meaning people assign to their own and other people’s actions.
Qualitative research uses a range of methods including face-to-face interviews, focus groups,
participant observation and documentary analysis to capture and examine lived experience as
well as the meaning people attribute to their actions and the differing socio-cultural worlds
they live their lives in (Chamberlain, 2013). Furthermore, qualitative methods can be used to
explore the lived experience and personal understandings of individuals labelled by society as
deviant and delinquent, the victims of crime, those categorized as convicted criminals
alongside members of the agencies of crime control. As such, qualitative research methods
86
undoubtedly play a foundational role in the development of sociological criminology.
The empirical aspect of this study centred on the use of nine focus groups with residents from
three areas in North-West England, namely Rainford village (St Helens Borough), St Helens
town centre (St Helens Borough) and Skelmersdale (West Lancashire). Focus groups
enabled group interaction and an open discussion of ASB and everyday morality - a method
that is ‘helpful for participants to discuss perceptions, ideas, opinions and thoughts’ (Kruegar
and Casey, 2000, as cited in Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009: 2) and to investigate ‘peoples’ views
or perceptions of, attitudes towards, and experiences of particular areas in life’ (Hyden and
Bulow, 2003: 306).
Location selection
All three areas are near each other, but were selected due to the disparity in their 2010
English Index of Multiple Deprivation (EIMD) rank, produced by the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) (DCLG, 2011). The 2010 EIMD consists of several distinct categories that
comprise an overall measure of deprivation. These categories are: income, employment,
health and disability, education skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime,
and finally living environment. The EIMD generates a relative ranking of 32,482 Lower
Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) within England. (LSOAs have an average of 1,500
residents.) The ranking conveys the most deprived LSOA (being 1), to a high score or rank
conveying the least deprived (32,482).
Skelmersdale represented one of the most deprived locations nationally according to the
EIMD. Rainford was representative of a least deprived location. St Helens provided a blend
of participants with a range of experiences of deprivation. Out of 32,482 LOSA areas,
Skelmersdale town was ranked 2,971. On a more local level, the Digmoor area of
Skelmersdale had a score of just 283, followed by two more very low scores of 541
(Moorside) and Birch Green (662). The Skelmersdale groups were held within the ‘West
Lancashire Ark’, a community and ecumenical centre which is located within the Birch
Green area.
The second location selected for data collection was St Helens town centre. St Helens
represented mixed deprivation ranging from very low ranks (44) to much higher ranks of very
87
little deprivation (30,074). The EIMD ranked St Helens as the 51st most deprived local
authority in England (out of 326) in 2010. Focus groups were held in the St Helens public
library and in the St Helens Millennium Centre (a community hub area).
The third location selected for the focus groups was in Rainford, within the wider St Helens
Borough. Rainford is the third least deprived area within the St Helens Borough with an IMD
ranking of 27,603. On a more local scale there is an area within Rainford which has a very
high IMD ranking of 29,935; hence it is considered to have very little deprivation. The
Rainford focus groups were conducted within a local church hall. The locations of each of the
focus groups were selected as they provided close and efficient access to participants from
each location.
Focus groups
In total there were nine focus groups (three focus groups in each of the three areas). Five to
six participants comprised each focus group (with focus group 2 in St Helens having seven
participants), giving a total of 50 participants across all the groups. In the study there were
thirty-four female participants and sixteen male participants. Seventeen participants were
from Skelmersdale. Fifteen participants were from Rainford and eighteen were from St
Helens. The participants ranged in age from nineteen to sixty-nine.
Focus groups were selected as they provide ‘an economical, fast and efficient method for
obtaining data from multiple participants’ (Kruegar and Casey, 2000, as cited in,
Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009: 2). Focus groups help facilitate a sense of belonging that can help
promote information sharing when participants feel willing to share their views (Vaughn et
al, 1996). Other methods such as semi-structured or structured interviews may not have
provided an environment where participants could interact and discuss their perceptions.
Focus groups enabled the researcher to facilitate participants’ sense of cohesiveness (Peters,
1993) in an environment that created the opportunity for spontaneous responses (Butler,
1996).
Focus groups should bring together a group of people who, under the guidance of a
moderator, engage in a group question and answer discussion. However, as the study
progressed it became necessary to adapt to potential problematic circumstances, such as
88
people withdrawing or becoming unavailable for participation. The focus groups were
conducted in a semi-structured format. An interview schedule was developed (see Appendix
C), although participants could debate and discuss questions interactively. The interview
schedule had fifteen questions organised into four sections. The first question was a rapport
building mechanism for participants to briefly introduce themselves. The second section had
four introductory questions on ASB and everyday morality to invite general discussion. The
next section focused on the relationship between ASB and everyday morality in more depth.
Subsequently, six vignette scenarios with specific accompanying questions (Appendix C)
were provided for participants to discuss. Finally, the fourth section detailed the final
questions to summarise and bring the discussion to a close. Participants were then invited to
ask questions or add further on any aspect of the focus group and thanked for their time.
Each group was allocated a sixty-minute time slot. Participants were recruited through local
organisations and community hubs in each location. They were invited by the researcher to
participate if they met the criteria of living in that location. Recruited participants were then
organised into groups based on a suitable and appropriate time that they were available.
Demographic information was collected about participants, for example what age range they
were in and their residential status. All focus group data were recorded using an audio
recording device and all were transcribed verbatim.
Sampling
Purposive sampling was used for this study. Denovan and Macaskill (2013) have claimed that
the strength of using purposive sampling in IPA research is the assurance that the topic
investigated is relevant for the sample studied. However, ASB has been acknowledged as a
widespread phenomenon (Home Office, 2011). It has also been the recipient of much media
attention and coverage (Flint and Powell, 2009). It was the contention of this current study
that suitable participants could potentially include those who simply have views and beliefs
regarding morality in relation to ASB, or have directly experienced ASB themselves. Whilst
participants were not specifically targeted with regards to having experience of ASB,
individuals were selected from areas with various levels of deprivation. In previous chapters
it has already been reported that ASB has often been framed as an issue in deprived contexts
and interventions were aimed at the poor (Bate, 2017; Crossley and Lambert, 2017; Sayer,
2017). Thus, the study included participants from a location that could be considered
89
deprived according to the 2010 IMD (Skelmersdale) as well as a mixed area (St Helens) and a
more affluent area (Rainford).
In terms of what size of sample should be used for IPA, a typical study could include any
amount ranging from one participant to fifteen participants (Bramley and Eatough, 2005).
However, there has been evidence suggesting that smaller samples are more useful, as too
many may cause difficulty in analysing qualitative data (Smith, 2003). Focus groups are not
intended to develop a consensus regarding views on a topic, but instead seek to collect
various perceptions and beliefs regarding a subject (Kruegar and Casey, 2000). The bare
minimum of participants should be no less than three focus groups and between 4-12
participants per group (Kruegar and Casey, 2000). For Morgan (1998) there should be 6-10
participants. This should allow enough data to be collected and analysed. However, Merton et
al. (1990: 137) commented on focus group composition, noting that:
…the size of the group should manifestly be governed by two
considerations… it should not be so large as to be unwieldy or to preclude
adequate participation by most members nor should it be so small that it fails
to provide substantially greater coverage than that of an interview with one
individual.
Taking this into consideration, a minimum of five participants and maximum of ten would
enable a balance between quantity and quality of data for IPA. Krueger (1994) mentions that
smaller group sizes are preferable when participants have a great deal to share about the
topic, although Krueger (1994) also states that larger group sizes provide for a greater range
of perceptions in more general terms. The number of focus groups deemed appropriate for
valid research varies from eight to fifty-two, with a tendency for the range to be mainly from
ten to fifteen (Deacon et al., 1999, cited in Bryman, 2012). As noted, the current investigation
included nine focus groups.
Use of vignettes
The current study utilised tailored vignettes to assist with the data collection on perceptions
of everyday morality and ASB. Vignettes have been used by researchers from a wide range of
disciplines. They can ‘capture how meanings, beliefs, judgements and actions are
90
situationally positioned’ (Barter and Reynolds, 1999: 308). According to Hazel (1995: 2, as
cited in Barter and Reynolds, 1999: 308) vignettes are stories that provide: ‘Concrete
examples of people and their behaviours on which participants can offer comment or
opinion’. The researcher can utilise these stories to generate a discussion and facilitate debate
on any key terms used in the participants’ dialogue or comments. Early research has
purported that utilising vignettes can enable the nature of values that underlie moral decisions
to be extrapolated (Wilks, 2004). Wilks contends that vignettes can assist our understanding
of the relationship between an individual’s actions, values and perceptions.
Using open-ended vignette scenarios enabled a degree of flexibility in participant responses
and facilitated a greater depth of data (West, 1982, as cited in Finch, 1987). Participants
become empowered to define the situation according to their own cognitions and ideas (West,
1982 as cited in Finch, 1987). However, a point to consider when designing vignettes is the
requirement to provide a sufficient level of context; otherwise the situation may be too vague
and fail to evoke a response. The vignettes adopted for this study provided context to ensure
participants could generate a response. When participants were unable to respond, the
researcher could utilise questions that acted as prompts to promote discussion. For example,
vignette one had questions to complement the scenario including; ‘is it morally permissible to
behave this way?’ (Appendix C).
Barter and Reynolds (1999) note that providing sufficient, contextual material gives
respondents additional information that may influence their decisions and judgments. The
vignette description should be as neutral and bias free as possible. Due diligence was taken to
‘bracket’ the researcher’s own preconceptions when devising the scenario. For example, what
behaviours the researcher perceives to be immoral, anti-social, or both should not heavily
influence the context of the vignettes.
A further key point to consider when utilising vignettes is whether they will be used in
conjunction with another investigative method. Barter and Reynolds (1999) reported that
vignettes have frequently been employed successfully with other data collection methods.
The current approach comprised both semi-structured focus group questions and vignettes.
The use of vignettes provided opportunities for comparisons, enabling different perspectives
to be collected regarding a situation (Barter and Reynold, 1999). This had the benefit of
identifying and isolating some individual factors to be considered during analysis, such as
91
what behaviours were perceived as anti-social and moral or immoral. Therefore, whilst
having disparate groups may be divisive and a potential limitation, the research suggests that
the wider context of different groups’ perceptions and views can be explored; thus, enabling
the exploration of differences in interpretation regarding a certain phenomenon (Barter and
Reynolds, 1999). Despite this, there were some disparities in the sample of the current focus
groups. For example, there was no specific age range, background or other factors as criteria
for inclusion in the study. This may have hindered the identification of some characteristics
that may influence perceptions of ASB and everyday morality.
According to Neff (1979) vignettes are most effective whenever the situation they are meant
to represent is perceived as accurate by the participants. There is previous research that has
attempted to construct vignettes whilst bearing this idea in mind, for example, Harden et al.,
(1999, as cited in Barter and Reynolds, 1999). However, when utilising vignettes, Barter and
Reynolds (1999) explained that it is important to consider that some scenarios can potentially
be distressing. Furthermore, the act of telling participants that a scenario is based upon a real
story may increase the risk of distress, for example if the participant can relate to the story or
is in a similar position.
This necessitated careful consideration for the researcher. In the current study, all participants
were informed prior to their involvement that they may withdraw at any point if they are in
any way distressed. Furthermore, if the researcher either observed or was made aware of any
participant becoming distressed due to a scenario presented in a vignette, regarding ASB,
then they did not have to remain involved and could withdraw. That said, Barter and
Reynolds (1999) found that participants’ ability to engage with the narrative of a vignette
may have been enhanced if they had personal experience of the situation described.
Therefore, this could be a strength of the present study.
Finally, another point to consider when using vignettes is comparing data sets across groups.
For example, Barter and Reynolds (1999) previously found that comparing participants’
responses from more than one type of group (residential workers’ experiences and young
people’s accounts) can present a problem when participants provide different amounts of
information regarding a question or vignette than another. They utilised semi-structured focus
group questions in addition to vignettes, reporting that there was ‘different degrees of
recollection’ (Barter and Reynolds,1999: 320) between events recalled in the study that both
92
groups of participants had experience of. The subsequent effect of this was that potential
‘mediating factors’ can be missed due to vague recollection or confusion between two
different stories regarding the same phenomenon.
Another strength of vignettes is their ability to be employed as ‘ice-breakers’ (Hazel, 1995: 2,
as cited in Barter and Reynolds, 1999). Indeed, Hazel claimed they can function to instigate
the initial discussion within a focus group. Furthermore, they may act as a ‘cool-down’ when
nearing the finish of an interview, or to broaden the focus of the study from the more personal
aspects of the experience to the more abstract (Wade, 1999). The versatile nature of vignettes
is further exemplified by the variety in issues that may be investigated utilising this
technique. For example, Knutsen et al. (2010) adapted the vignette method to investigate
moral judgment. Knutsen et al. (2010) noted that myriad types of vignettes have been
employed by previous research on moral beliefs and judgment. However, one issue they
noted was the lack of standardised, common vignettes based in real life. The current study
does not employ a set of standardised vignettes due to there being a lack of research using
this technique in criminological research investigating ASB.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was attained from the Edge Hill University Ethics Committee prior to any
activity involving participants. The University’s Code of Ethics as well as the British Society
of Criminology’s Statement of Ethics were strictly adhered to throughout all stages of the
research. The research addressed four ethical principles (Diener and Crandell, 1978, as cited
in, Bryman 2012: 135):
1. Whether there is harm to participants;
2. Whether there is a lack of informed consent;
3. Whether there is an invasion of privacy; and
4. Whether deception is involved.
Harm to participants
It was not expected that participants would be harmed or at risk of psychological or physical
harm during this study or that research participation would be disturbing. All participation
was entirely voluntary. Precautionary measures to safeguard participants included respect to
93
confidentiality and maintenance of confidential records, ensuring anonymity that individuals
were not identifiable or identified, and for information to be suitably stored in compliance
with the Data Protection Act (1998). If participants were distressed, felt uncomfortable or did
not wish to answer certain questions they had the option to not answer any questions or to
terminate their involvement in the project.
Informed consent
All participants were provided with an information sheet prior to collection of any data
detailing the nature and requirements of the study. Importantly, all participants were fully
informed of their right to withdraw from the study within four weeks of data collection and
were fully debriefed after their participation.
Invasion of privacy
Participants’ rights to privacy were not violated by agreeing voluntarily to take part in the
research study. Confidentiality of taking part, specifically not being named, identified or any
personal details being revealed was confirmed verbally prior to the commencement of the
study. It was also conveyed within the consent form. This reiterated participants’ right to
anonymity. Right to anonymity was not guaranteed if serious harm or criminality were
revealed. However, this did not present as an issue during the study. Participants were given
the right to withdraw prior to commencement if concerned in relation to this. To further
protect confidentiality participants’ data were securely stored. The audio transcripts and
electronic copies of the data were password protected and any identifiable data destroyed
following full transcription and analysis of the participants’ data. To further protect
participants’ confidentiality each were given a pseudonym. No data used will be able to lead
to the identification of the participant.
Deception
There was no deception involved in the research project. All participants were given a verbal
explanation outlining the nature of the research study and their participation, and written
details in the consent form which verified their willingness to continue. Following the
research participation, individuals were given a verbal explanation and written debrief sheet
to conclude the research task. Transparency, honesty and integrity were adhered to
throughout.
94
In addition, ethical principles, personal safety, well-being and risk for the researcher were
duly considered. It was considered there was no reason for concern prior to or throughout the
process, especially mindful of environmental factors, participants, the nature of the research
project, the type of venue for hosting and the data collection.
Rationale for method of analysis
The study aimed to investigate beliefs regarding ASB and everyday morality through focus
groups involving the open discussion and debate of individuals’ experiences, beliefs and
perceptions. The phenomenological approach is suitable if investigating the lived experiences
of individuals who have ‘the internal experience of being conscious of something’
(Groenwald, 2004: 4). The suggestion is that phenomenology aims to capture the social and
psychological phenomena through examining the perceptions of participants (Groenwald,
2004). In phenomenology, individuals who have personally witnessed or experienced a
specific phenomenon are normally chosen for study (Groenwald, 2014). It had been noted
that IPA has not got a single, prescribed method of how to analyse data. However, Palmer et
al. (2010) acknowledge there is a common set of guidelines that may be applied flexibly to
using IPA. This is dependent on the analytical requirements from the data (Reid et al., 2005,
as cited in Palmer et al., 2010). IPA is an iterative and inductive process that entails following
these steps:
1. Reflection on preconceptions and processes (Smith, 2007);
2. Line-by-line analysis (coding) of experiential claims, concerns and understandings of
participants with close attention to the language used (Larkin et al., 2006);
3. Identifying emergent patterns of themes (Eatough and Smith, 2008); and
4. Dialogue between researcher and data in terms of what the participants’ concerns
might mean within this context (Larkin et al., 2006; Smith; 2004), helping to induce
an interpretive account of the data.
These steps informed each stage of the data analysis and were utilised as prompts to engage
with the data and to reflect on aspects which may have required more focus during analysis
(as recommended by Palmer et al., 2010). These steps were malleable in the way that they
evolved during analysis and were influenced by focus group variables such as when questions
were asked, or elicited strong debate between participants. This was to ensure that, instead of
95
these steps being strict guidelines they would conversely complement the individual steps
taken to conduct IPA and enrich the analysis. Participants’ experiential narratives were
recorded whilst the researcher simultaneously noted additional commentary during the focus
groups. For example, it was noted how claims contributed to the facilitation of the group
discussion.
According to Bloomberg and Volpe (2012) phenomenological research has origins in the
philosophical works of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and subsequent philosophical
discussions by Heidegger (1889–1976) and Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961). More recently,
Moustakas (1994: 11, as cited in Bloomberg and Volpe, 2012) has stated that,
‘phenomenological research involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive
and prolonged engagement to develop patterns and relationships of meaning’. Husserl (1970,
as cited in Dowling, 2007) contended that the lived world is understood as what individuals
experience before reflection. Husserl’s approach entails attempting to comprehend the
quintessential features of a phenomenon as free as possible from cultural context. Caelli
(2000: 132) described Husserl’s phenomenological approach as one that ‘requires that
descriptions of experience be gleaned before it has been reflected on’. Husserl purported that
individuals need to ‘bracket’ out the outer world in addition to individual biases to achieve
the level of neutrality necessary to truly understand a participant’s subjective experience.
According to Valle et al. (1989, as cited in Dowling, 2007: 132) a phenomenologist must
‘bracket one’s preconceptions and presuppositions’ by making them as overt and lucid as
possible. This can be achieved through phenomenological reduction, a process described by
Valle et al. (1989: 11) who stated that ‘reduction’ is when an individual ‘reduces the world as
it is considered in the natural attitude to a world of pure phenomena or, more poetically, to a
purely phenomenal realm’. Phenomenological reduction enables the researcher to achieve an
understanding of the subject as free from prejudice as possible, so it can be precisely
described and understood. Parse (2001: 79) described this as ‘the process of coming to know
the phenomenon as it shows itself as described by participants’.
Van Manen contended that phenomenologists focus on describing ‘what all participants have
in common’, the fundamental purpose of research being to ‘reduce individual experiences
with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence’ (as cited in Bloomberg and
Volpe, 2012: 32). He further suggested that phenomenological research involves ‘dynamic
interplay’ between research activities:
96
The researcher focuses on a phenomenon or lived experience that is an abiding
concern.
The researcher reflects on essential themes that constitute the nature of this lived
experience.
The researcher then writes a description of the phenomenon, maintaining a strong
relationship to the topic of inquiry.
Phenomenology is not only description, however; it is also an interpretive process in which
the researcher interprets the meaning of the lived experience. As Moustakes (1994, as cited in
Robson, 2011: 492) has stated, ‘the concept of epoche involves bracketing one's own
experiences as much as possible to take a fresh perspective of the phenomenon under
consideration’. The word ‘epoche’ means to ‘refrain from judgement or abstain from the
everyday, typical approach to perceiving things.’ (Robson, 2011: 492). However, Moustakes
(1994) noted that ‘epoche’ is not something frequently attained in qualitative research.
In a similar vein, Vanderstoep and Johnstone (2009: 207) describe ‘a unique feature of
phenomenology as being the demand on the researcher to suspend all judgments about what
are real, suggesting phenomenologists maintain that human experience makes sense to those
who live it.’ (2009: 207). The requirement to refrain from typical judgment and ‘bracket’ the
researcher’s own experience was required for the current approach. It is worthwhile to note,
however, that some have debated whether it is possible to divorce our own values from
research (Becker, 1967). For example, the sociologist Howard Becker (1967) once proposed
that a value-neutral approach to research is not possible. He stated:
… one would have to assume, as some apparently do, that it is indeed possible
to do research that is uncontaminated by personal and political sympathies. I
propose to argue that it is not possible and, therefore, that the question is not
whether we should take sides, since we inevitably will, but rather whose side
we are on.’ (Becker, 1967: 239).
Essentially, this may hold true for disciplines such as philosophy, criminology and other
academic disciples. Millie (2016) agreed that value or bias free research is not possible,
stating that ‘impartiality is an impossibility’ (2016: 15). Millie (2016) gives the example of
criminologists, who regardless of their persuasion make value-judgments when deciding what
97
is important to study and which method to adopt. Becker arrived at the conclusion that often
researchers are likely to have deep sympathy with participants. For example, when studying
those who engage in deviant behaviour, researchers are likely to sympathise and attribute
their behaviour to ‘something going on that puts the deviants in the position they are in’
(Becker, 1967: 240). Becker claimed that ‘we must always’ look at the matter from
someone’s point of view.’ (1967: 245). A researcher cannot avoid taking sides; the issue is
whether this distorts findings or makes the analysis ‘useless’ (Becker, 1967: 245).
The best method of attempting to counter this is through utilizing research techniques as
impartially as possible and avoiding sentimentality throughout the research process (Becker,
1967). Becker noted that this is not a solution, rather a method to ‘satisfy the demands of our
science by always making clear the limits of what we have studied, beyond which our
findings cannot be safely applied’ (1967: 247). Becker advocated the following to provide
some minor reprieve when conducting research:
…limit our conclusions carefully, recognize the hierarchy of credibility for
what it is, and field as best we can the accusations and doubts that will surely
be our fate. (1967: 247)
Thus, a value-judgment free process is not possible. In line with Becker, the current study
examined - as much as possible - ASB and everyday morality through the eyes of
participants. Whilst the role of the researcher may not be wholly unbiased or value-neutral,
Becker maintained that at the minimum effort can be made to avoid any distortions that might
affect the data to ‘satisfy the demands of our science’ (1967: 247). Furthermore, value
judgements are a key factor in determining what people, governments and societies deem to
be appropriate or inappropriate behaviour (Millie, 2016). Thus, what constitutes criminal or
anti-social behaviour is linked to value judgments – and these are of interest to criminological
enquiries (Millie, 2016). Ultimately, the aim of the researcher is to understand the experience
of the participants (Vanderstoep and Johnstone, 2009) as much as is possible.
IPA has been described by Smith and Osborn (2003: 51) as a method of inquiry whereby ‘the
participants are trying to make sense of their world; the researcher is trying to make sense of
the participants trying to make sense of their world’. This was particularly suitable for this
study, which was seeking to understand how people make decisions about what is or is not
98
ASB, and how they perceive the role of morality in ASB. Participants were asked to give
detailed accounts of their experiences of ASB and the thought processes that underpinned
their experiences. Attention was given to the role everyday morality played in these accounts.
Another advantage of IPA was that the participants themselves need not have directly
experienced ASB, as IPA is more interested in perceptions.
The completion of IPA analysis of the focus group transcripts involved roughly four stages
(Smith and Eatough, 2006). The first stage of analysis involved several close, detailed
readings of the transcripts. This was to give the researcher a good overview of the participant
accounts and a feel for the ‘story’ they were telling. This ensured that the final analysis
remained true to the original narrative. The second stage involved the identification of initial
themes, which were then organised into master and sub themes. The third stage entailed
reading through the transcripts and organizing themes.
It was important that quotes relating to each theme were highlighted, as this ensured the
original meaning of what the participants were saying was not lost under a vague theme
heading. Once the themes had been decided, stage three involved refining the themes in more
detail, and identifying links between them. For example, if ‘emotions’ was one master theme,
how does this relate to the other master themes, and what can these relationships tell us about
the phenomena under study? The fourth stage involved bringing everything together to
present a narrative of the participants’ lived experiences of the phenomena under study. At
this point, however, it is acknowledged that the account produced cannot be separated from
the researcher’s own interpretation of that account. The end stage of analysis is described as
‘…the interplay between the interpretative activity of the researcher and the participants’
account of their experience (Smith and Eatough, 2012: 450).
Research appraisal
Tracy (2010) has constructed a simple checklist for appraising and/or thinking about quality
criteria for qualitative research. This was used for the current study and includes the
following eight criteria:
1. Worthy topic – relevant, interesting and significant, etc.
2. Rich vigour – rich data supplied in abundance and appropriately.
99
3. Sincerity – the researcher is reflexive about values and biases and is transparent in
approach.
4. Credibility – implements practices such as thick descriptions, triangulation and
respondent validation.
5. Resonance – has an effecting impact on readers.
6. Significant contribution – makes an impact in terms of such outcomes as theory,
practice and morality.
7. Ethical – considers and engages in ethical practices.
8. Meaningful coherence – addresses what it claims to address, uses appropriate
methods, and links research questions, literature findings and interpretations.
In conjunction with note-taking and memo-taking, the research consistently referred to this
criteria in striving to attain ‘qualitative quality’ (Tracy, 2010: 849). This included maintaining
copies of raw data such as transcripts, procedure notes and making the research process
transparent. Seale (1999) described this as an audit process in which the researcher provides
‘a methodologically self-critical account of how the research was done’ (Seale, 1999: 468).
Limitations of the current study
The qualitative nature of the study relied on a semi-structured format to maintain direction
within the discussions. It therefore required questions or actions to act as ‘nudges’ or prompts
to further the discussion. Such prompts may have elicited repeat stories or viewpoints
(spiralling) but may also have created a new account as a response (Burck, 2005). Burck
suggests prior experiences, although beneficial, may be detrimental during the data collection
process regarding researcher responses. Internal dilemmas when responding as a researcher
can be difficult to overcome. It is important to maintain self-awareness when responding and
reflexivity during transcript analysis.
A Strength of IPA was that it explicitly acknowledged that the researcher brought their own
views and experiences to the research situation, and that this may have influenced how the
findings were interpreted. This potentially could have been an issue in the current study
where just one researcher was responsible for all aspects of the research process. Although,
potential researcher bias is a factor that must be considered a limitation, according to Yardley
100
(as cited in Crossley, 2000), this is a common criticism of qualitative research especially
when prompting during research and when analysing the data.
To minimise potential researcher bias great care was taken to ensure there was no leading
questions, assisted by advice from senior colleagues. In the analysis phase, a key way of
reducing researcher bias was to ensure negative-case analysis. This meant that quotes and
experiences which did not align with dominant themes were also presented in the final
analysis. That is, exceptions as well as the rule were sought. This should have prevented the
researchers’ own interpretation of the participants’ accounts having too much influence over
the analysis. As a further check, the focus group transcripts and the analysis were offered to
the participants at the end of the study so that they could determine if they felt their views
have been accurately represented.
Another method to counteract researcher bias was by attempting to attain an objective as
possible record of the data set. The investigation enabled the open discussion and interaction
between participants, which according to Kruegar and Casey (2000), is a strength of focus
group research. The focus group structure places emphasis on group dynamics such as
debate, and contextual relationships shaped through this discussion that minimise the role of
the researcher. There was also the risk that the specific sample of participants recruited may
limit the generalisability of findings to the wider population.
An important limitation to acknowledge is the difficulties involved within Interpretative
Phenomenology. Lopez and Willis (2004) identify one such difficulty concerning
Heidegger’s (1962) concept of freedom. Leonard (1999, as cited in Lopez and Willis, 2004:
727) refers to this concept as ‘situational freedom’, suggesting that individuals may make
their own decisions and choices; however, such actions are circumscribed by their lived
experiences as well as social, cultural and political factors involved in said experiences
(Burck, 2005). In the case of this study, the use of participants purely from the North West of
England would inevitably produce lived experiences based on similar social, cultural and
political factors. It would therefore be unviable to extrapolate findings to a wider population
where such factors would most likely differ and therefore produce distinctly different
experiences and perspectives.
101
The situational freedom produces a further difficulty of IPA in the challenge of correct
interpretation. Not only does one have to interpret participants’ narratives, but one must
interpret the narratives in relation to the context of social, cultural and political factors
(Smith, 1987, as cited in Lopez and Willis, 2004). The advantage of prior experience and
expertise allows more meaningful extractions to be made from such narratives (Maxwell,
2005); however, the interpretation must be made from the lived experience perspective.
Heidegger accepted that it would be impossible to rid oneself of background understanding
throughout interpretation. Yet, it is important to remain open to new ideas and concepts so as
not to become restricted by existing theories and concepts (Groenewald, 2004). Conroy
(2003: 21) refers to a concept of a ‘double internal tap’ whereby the researcher ‘absorbs’
what is being said and separates ‘their own interpretations from the participants’. Tools such
as personal reflections and note-taking, aid in acknowledging and tackling such limitations
(Smith et al., 2009).
A reflective diary could have been used throughout the duration of the study (Elliot et al.,
1999). However, this was not done as there was potential for a reflexive diary to dilute the
researcher’s attempt to achieve a high level of phenomenological reduction. Starks and
Trinidad (2007: 1376) have claimed that a researcher ‘must be honest and vigilant about her
own perspective, pre-existing thoughts and beliefs, and developing hypotheses’. To achieve
this, researchers must ‘recognise and set aside (but do not abandon) their a priori knowledge
and assumptions, with the analytic goal of attending to the participants’ accounts with an
open mind’ (Starks and Trinidad, 2007: 1376). The researcher maintained notes throughout
all stages of the study.
Previous research has reported that if part of a discussion leads the open debate of a sensitive
or even potentially offensive subject then participants may not reveal their inner beliefs
(Whitaker et al., 2003). In the current study, there was the potential limitation that the open
discussion of ASB may have evoked a negative emotional response and limited the revealing
of inner views. However, participants did have the option to not answer questions and were
open to leave the group if they felt the need to do so.
102
Chapter 5.
Analysis and Discussion
Introduction
Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of the focus group data revealed a variety of
interrelated themes. The themes were coded on a case-by-case basis, developed from
emergent themes that were later analysed with all data to identify recurrent themes. This
ensured that the themes reflected both shared and divergent perceptions regarding ASB and
everyday morality. To effectively capture the participants’ subjective experiences, there was
less focus on imposing distinctiveness within each theme. The analysis focused on aspects of
the data that best represented the participants’ own lived experiences of ASB and everyday
morality. Whilst acknowledgment was made of the variances between and within the three
locations of the present investigation (Rainford, St Helens and Skelmersdale), there was a
pivotal focus on the participants’ own individual perceptions. However, similar experiences
and perceptions regarding both ASB and everyday morality were evident during the analysis,
regardless of locale or other demographic characteristics. This enabled a broader scope of
findings that could be analysed in both an individual and group context.
The first theme comprised perceptions of what constitutes ASB. This provides a foundation
upon which perceptions and experiences of ASB could be established within each focus
group. The themes then progressed into more focused aspects of ASB and perceptions
regarding:
What constitutes ASB;
The consequences, and potential antecedents of ASB;
Deprivation and ASB; and finally
Moral explanations of ASB.
103
The themes regarding moral explanations of ASB focus on perceptions of morality and
reciprocity, and what it means to be moral or immoral. Following on, perceptions centre on
whether there is a link between ASB and immorality, ASB and consequences, and
relationships between parents and morality.
Perceptions of what constitutes ASB
The rhetoric discussed earlier in this thesis regarding the nature and definition of ASB was
echoed by the participants from the lower status Skelmersdale focus groups. When asked
about their thoughts on ASB there was a familiar range of examples reported:
First thing that comes to my mind is gangs… threatening behaviour and all of
the things just said you know noisy neighbours and that sort of thing, erm…
swearing at you and that sort of abuse, you know its gangs and threatening
behaviour. (P.4. Skelmersdale, Focus Group 2)
…for me it’s things that I can see I can put a label on as being ASB such as
graffiti, willful damage of property, that kind of thing. (P.4, Skelmersdale
Focus Group 3)
erm… anti-social behaviour is anything that affects the area or the people in
the area and things like that, so graffiti or causing damage to building or
garages and things… or even being intimidating if there are like kids in groups
that could become intimidating to people. Things like that, or any kind of
disturbance or disruption to how people go about their lives and things like
that, and any form or way of disrupting someone else is a form of being anti-
social. (P.3, Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
It has previously been claimed that ASB is socially constructed and the interpretation of what
ASB is may be entirely subjective (Brown, 2004; Mackenzie et al., 2010; Morgado and Vale
Dias, 2013; Heap, 2014). It was also noted that ASB may be determined more by perception
and intolerance rather than a behaviour being ‘anti-social’ (Millie, 2006; Mackenzie et al.,
2010). As previously noted, ASB can be influenced by factors such as our own level of
tolerance and behavioural expectations within differing contexts.
104
In this thesis, participant views of whether a behaviour is anti-social, or not, appeared to vary
in accordance with perceptions of acceptability and potential consequences on others. An
issue identified in chapters 1 and 2 was how the subjective definition of ASB impacts upon
public perceptions of what constitutes ASB. Interestingly, Heap (2014) revealed that
community tolerance towards ASB was perceived to be low. This was attributed to the
cultural dynamics of the micro-geographies that had been studied. Thus, tolerance may differ
in accordance with different neighbourhood communities.
Many people with competing views, expectations and values all inhabit the same space,
particularly in urban environments. Millie (2006) has argued that individuals have variations
in what behaviour they expect within public spaces. These result in competing ideas of what
behaviours are deemed acceptable and what are deemed anti-social. Consequently, he
claimed this has impacts on people’s willingness to accept or tolerate different behaviours. As
noted, tolerating behaviour, rather than seeking to condemn it, may be the more positive
solution to dealing with that which is perceived as ‘different’. There indeed could be
multifarious subtypes of ASB which are socially-determined constructs, particularly by our
own subjective standards of what acceptable or unacceptable behaviours are, and how
tolerant we are of such behaviours. For instance, in a higher status focus group in Rainford
(Focus Group 1), a participant acknowledged the subjective aspects of ASB:
[ASB is] people behaving in a way that is objectionable to other people, but
it’s also to do with people’s perceptions, what a person might think, a certain
thing is anti-social and another person might think that’s not anti-social
behaviour you know. So there are different views and different perceptions of
what’s going on in society and I think it’s, erm… common sense assumptions,
people make common sense assumptions about people and then they go on
about it. (P.1, Rainford Focus Group 1)
It is evident from this perspective that what is regarded as ASB may be different from one
person to another. For example, whilst many participants acknowledged the ‘usual’ types of
ASB such as noise pollution, loitering and littering, other not so common descriptions of
ASB were mentioned:
105
I mean for me it’s something quite similar to that… It can be behaviour that’s
against… like the unwritten, like you said, norms and values of society and it
could be something that harms, behaviour that harms, the social well-being of
other people. (P.2, St Helens Focus Group 3)
This perception was one of a minority in the study, although it was not the only response that
indicated that anything may be ASB if it is against the ‘norms and values’ of society. This
notion was further reiterated by another participant in the same focus group:
Erm… Well my first thoughts are… it’s kind of all about perception, what is
anti-social to one person may not be to another… so what comes into my mind
first is anything that goes against the sort of unwritten rules and regulations of
society that guide our everyday behaviour. If something you do, goes out of
your way, to cause harm, harassment or abuse towards another individual, then
that itself is ASB. That’s [what] my first thoughts are of it. (P.1, St Helens
Focus Group 3)
There is an acknowledgment here that motivation is a defining aspect of ASB. Again, the
participant mentions that there are ‘unwritten rules and regulations’ that society should follow
in daily life. However, there is also mention of harassment and abuse, which is similar to
recent understandings of what constitutes ASB. According to the Home Office (2012) the
term ‘anti-social behaviour’ describes the everyday nuisances, disorderly and criminal
behaviours of concern to local people, or those behaviours that were not a priority for police
forces and local authorities. Similarly, Brown (2013) reported that ASB is an umbrella term
for low-level nuisance behaviours, criminality and public disorder. This conceptualisation of
ASB remained steadfast for the majority of focus group participants. The next section
considers youthful misbehaviour.
Youthful ASB
Participants had different perceptions of youth and ASB, as well as varied perceptions of
parental responsibility for youth ASB. Many respondents reciprocated the notion that ASB is
a youth phenomenon, although some acknowledged that it was stereotype:
106
I suppose it’s the stigma associated with groups of youths isn’t it… you’re
intimidated by… so even if they’re not doing anything wrong, you could just
think they are… by your own morals and stigmas. (P.1, Skelmersdale Focus
Group 1)
However, more common perceptions of what ASB is, or who is often noted as the cause of
ASB, were iterated by other participants:
ASB, ’cause I’m getting on a bit, was yobs in my day so… that’s what comes
into my mind straight away is just kids roaming the streets and doing bad stuff
basically. (P.5, Skelmersdale Focus Group 3)
Erm… disrespectful… Anti-social… and going against the rules I always
think of… actually I agree with you, one of the first things that popped into
my head was male youths…. That’s awful isn’t it, stereotyping, but it was.
You always see it on the news. (P.1, Rainford Focus Group 3)
Other typical opinions served to reaffirm conventional views regarding the perpetrators of
ASB:
erm… my thoughts on ASB are… driving through the village and seeing
groups of young teenagers hanging around, sitting on benches in fairly large
groups and… being loud and noisy, maybe even walking past them and
feeling a bit intimidated by them. (P.2, Rainford Focus Group 2)
erm… yeah I guess just groups of young people loitering around… erm…
people just wanting to cause havoc towards other people… Pretty much what
you two have said I suppose [agreeing with P.1 and P.2]. (P.3, Rainford Focus
Group 2)
Across all focus groups there was implicit - or sometimes explicit - reference to youths,
young people, teenagers, and juveniles. This has been reinforced by evidence suggesting that
certain groups are more often perceived to be responsible for ASB than others (see for
instance, Brunger, 2008). Similar reports were evident in the Skelmersdale Focus Groups:
107
… yeah a lot of times it’s tied into like youths and that isn’t it? So, like youths
hanging around on the street causing trouble and that… (P.3, Skelmersdale
Focus Group 1)
However, not all participants linked ASB only to young members of society. For instance,
according to one participant ASB is linked to youths and those ‘a bit rough lookin’’. Another
highlighted the impact on ‘the peace of other people’:
erm I think of youths… or people who are a bit rough lookin’… hanging out at
night and trying to provoke people who are walking past… and you know like
drinking in the street… things that may make people feel uncomfortable. (P.4,
Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
erm… I think ASB is all of those things… erm… and also I think it’s things
like, erm… people dropping litter, speeding through villages when the speed
limit is lower, erm, generally causing a nuisance and upsetting the peace of
other people living in communities, causing trouble that kind of thing. (P.4,
Rainford Focus Group 2)
There were myriad personal experiences of ASB within each area of the study, with only a
minority of participants admitting some involvement in ASB themselves. Interestingly,
Participant 4, from Rainford Focus Group 2, shifted attention from youth behaviour onto the
broader population by discussing ‘speeding through villages’.
Some of the participants’ accounts suggested that ASB has serious consequences. For
example,
… and where we’ve lived we’ve had eggs thrown at window, because we
didn’t fit in, because it was a street where it was like Beirut, because we didn’t
fit in and because we kept ourselves to ourselves, it was ‘oh throw eggs at
their window, throw stones at their window they’re not one of us they’re not
part of our culture’ and whatever… you know… (P.3, St Helens Focus Group
1)
108
Participants from all focus groups told stories of ASB in their lives. It became evident that
they had either first-hand experience of ASB, or they knew another individual or group that
had experienced ASB. Perceptions of ASB were heavily influenced by these stories, by the
negative impacts that ASB has had - but also in recognizing that what is anti-social to one is
not necessarily anti-social to another.
In summary, across all three areas in the study participants gave vivid descriptions of events
and understandings of what ASB means to them. Some agreed that ASB is subjective and
difficult to define. Furthermore, perceptions often reflected the idea that ASB is linked to
youths, although some recognized this as a stereotype. Perceptions of ASB and youths were
often intertwined with negative attitudes and ideas, with a focus on the consequences of such
behaviour. The next section further expands upon perceptions of ASB, focusing on the issues
and perceived impacts of ASB.
Issues of understanding ASB and impacts
There was a consistent focus by participants on the harmful and negative impacts of ASB,
particularly the impacts that ASB can have on victims, whether themselves of others. For
example, the following participants from St Helens Focus Group 1 recounted what ASB is to
them:
I’ve had me car scratched up, I’ve had me windows smashed in, I’ve had nails
put into me tyres (P.2)
being frightened of going past gangs (P.3)
yeah I’ve been attacked in me own house, I’ve been robbed in me own house
em… (P.1)
An intriguing subtext to the participants’ discussion of ASB is how they often could not help
recount what ASB is without describing some experience or narrative that reflects the impact
of it. In these statements, ASB was initially discussed with reference to physical damage and
vandalism to property. Participant two had tyres damaged, whilst participant one was
109
attacked and robbed. Such behaviour may be criminal, yet participants construed these acts as
anti-social behaviour. To these participants ASB had physical and emotional impacts, such as
participant three who felt ASB related to ‘being frightened’. Earlier it was reported that, even
if some behaviours and offences do not have a significant impact on one’s life, physically or
otherwise, they can still be considered a threat to people’s quality of life (Croall, 2004, as
cited in Croall, 2009). In Skelmersdale, one focus group discussion exemplified this:
I remember when… I used to play in a park with my friends, and we’d get like
new equipment in the park, and a week later it has been damaged and broken,
then there was no fun for anyone… It’s just completely destroyed, setting fire
to things and just ruining things… and it just affected everybody else and it
was no fun for anyone. (P.1, Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
Following this, a further two participants in the same group described similar stories of ASB
and the impacts it had on their lives. Yet, it is important to note, however, that early survey
evidence from 2004-2005 has suggested that over two thirds of the population in England and
Wales did not experience any negative impacts from ASB (Millie, 2006; Upson, 2006).
In addition to rich descriptions of their own personal experiences of ASB, some respondents
acknowledged how the perpetrators of ASB may not even be aware of the consequences, or
perceive their actions as anti-social. While perception is key to understanding ASB, perhaps
so too is education. For instance, according to one participant from Skelmersdale:
erm… well with loitering I think some people think that hanging around like
that is naughty… but I suppose… you have got to think well what else have
they got to do? If they’re too young to get jobs or they’re not in school, it’s
either that or staying indoors playing games, erm… so I suppose it is hanging
around doing nothing, but at the same time they’re socializing as well, getting
together… so…. Unless they’re being disruptive or causing distress to
others… it just depends on the situation really (P.1, Skelmersdale Focus
Group 1)
110
One participant in another group mentioned how someone explained that they had
experienced what would be perceived as ASB, yet disagreed that this was anti-social,
supporting Squires’ (2006) emphasis on context and perception:
… I’ve witnessed what other people have told me is anti-social behaviour, but
I haven’t actually agreed… like gangs of youths who… where I live near,
hadn’t actually done anything, but it’s a different section of people, that
actually make that into a problem and say that’s anti-social behaviour (P.5,
Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
What defines ASB?
In terms of the reasons why participants felt the need to question perceptions of what
constitutes ASB, they often noted that there could be any variety of circumstances in either
the victim’s or perpetrator’s situation that can influence whether an act is anti-social or not.
Similarly, Crawford (2008: 758) has described ‘location, community tolerance and quality of
life expectations’ as important considerations that are pertinent to understanding the
credentials of a behaviour to be considered ASB. Another participant acknowledged in the
layperson’s everyday view that ASB could be perceived as:
Against the normal person’s social outlook… Let’s say, bad morals, dog
fouling, kids flying around on motorbikes and noisy neighbours (P.3,
Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
The important point to note here is the reference to a ‘normal person’s social outlook’ in
terms of the everyday credentials of what constitutes ASB. Payne (2003: 321) has suggested
that ‘frequency, intensity, duration and whether it is considered appropriate, normal or
reasonable behaviour among a particular age group’ are important factors in determining
whether a behaviour is deemed anti-social. Amongst the shared perceptions that ASB has
negative impacts on others, participants listed a myriad of other examples of actions they
would consider to fall under the rubric of ASB: littering, graffiti, arson, drinking in public
spaces, disrespectful behaviour, vandalism, petty crime, disorderly behaviour, unlicensed
vehicle drivers, noise pollution, swearing, verbal and physical abuse, and pranking behaviour.
However, some participants questioned the legitimacy of the term ASB and commented on
the label:
111
[ASB is] something that the government came up with… to try and repress
teenagers… As a good way of dealing with them (P.2)
It’s just making a general nuisance… erm loitering… and large groups of
young people I suppose together would just get labelled as anti-social whether
they were being good or not so… just for being in a large group… so it is just
like a label and it is worn like a badge of honour, if anyone gets an ASBO to
all their friends they’re the coolest you know… around... so it’s not… it
doesn’t do anything I don’t think… ASBOs like… (P.3) (Skelmersdale Focus
Group 2)
From each focus group location, there were supportive statements that identified subjectivity
and perception as being important when considering what ASB is. When participants did not
mention perception as being important, the difficulty in categorising and defining ASB was
emphasised. Further examples were descriptions of being ‘disruptive’, being a ‘nuisance’ and
causing ‘distress’. The negative consequences of ASB were frequently mentioned during
discussion of understanding what ASB is and why it is an issue to people. The next section
will discuss perceived causes of ASB.
Perceived causes of ASB
The literature reveals multifarious potential causes for the onset of ASB. Each focus group
discussed what they thought may cause an individual to behave anti-socially. As noted
earlier, the various causes of ASB could possibly be linked to the subjectivity of ASB itself,
for example the 2003 government White Paper (2003:5) stated that ASB ‘means different
things to different people’; and as such, the potential causes could be numerate, dependent on
what behaviour is deemed anti-social. The diversity in participant responses across all focus
groups appeared to reflect both ideas that ASB means many different things to different
people and that there are many possible causes. For example, one participant in a Rainford
focus group was a local religious leader. He linked ASB to more serious criminality, but in a
way that tried to understand underlying structural causes:
112
In my, erm… not long, I suppose as much as the parish before that where I
was in Liverpool, ASB I experienced all the time, we were broken into, the
vicarage before, almost every night really, broken into, vandalized. We had a
new roof put on, that was vandalized, and whatever you tried to do. So that
was anti-social behaviour, stealing cars and driving them around the back of
the vicarage setting fire to them, every night that went so that was anti-social
behaviour. But what I think, what we have to do is dig deeper than that, well
‘what do I mean by anti-social behaviour?’ what about, ‘why are these people
doing these things?’ Maybe a high level of unemployment… which there was.
A high level of drug-taking and all that, ‘well why do people do that?’ It’s a
cycle of deprivation. A lot of the time, the parents have never had jobs, the
grandparents have never had jobs, and that’s the kind of area I lived in, high-
rise flats. So it brings with it all these problems, and it’s all, what we would
say is anti-social behaviour, but the people perpetrating these things don’t
even consider it, they don’t even think of it being anti-social, they’re just
trying to survive. They saw the vicarage as a threat, you see, it was the biggest
house in the parish so, it was a target, ‘why should you live in a big house like
that?’ we’ve got… (P.4)
‘you’ve got more than us’… (P.2)
yeah… mmm…(P.3)
that was wicked… but you’ve got to dig deep, well what’s going on in these
peoples’ lives? (P.4)
(Rainford Focus Group 1)
In this account there was an appreciation for the difficulty of deciding what is and is not
ASB. Perceptions were linked to structural inequalities by participants four and two, whilst
participant three agreed that ASB may be caused by feelings of inequality. Participant two, in
agreement, stated that it’s a ‘you’ve got more than us’ mentality when it comes to ASB. The
notion that ASB may be related to structural inequality is not new. Flint (2006) has contended
that the focus of multiple strategies on tackling ASB within housing was founded upon such
assumptions. The assumptions were that structural inequality and poverty may exacerbate
113
ASB and malfunctioning social relationships. He further claimed that the underpinning
rationale behind this philosophy is the idea ‘that a combination of material improvements,
dialogue and understanding can ameliorate some of the problems surrounding ASB.’ (Flint,
2006: 274). Similarly, perceptions of ASB aetiology were linked to a lack of equality such as
a ‘high level of unemployment’ or a ‘cycle of deprivation’ by participant four. However, this
participant also noted that the perpetrators may not consider this behaviour anti-social,
instead being a survival mechanism for those deprived of material wealth.
More recent evidence bolsters the idea that social inequalities are related to behavioural
issues or disorders (Piotrowska, 2015). During a systemic review of evidence pertaining to
social position and mental health outcomes, Piotrowska (2012: 1) suggested that; ‘Some
evidence demonstrates a social gradient in behavioural problems.’ For example, Piotrowska
(2012) reported that ‘Conduct Disorder’, a mental health disorder that can reveal itself in
anti-social behaviours, refers to:
… a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of
others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated.
(Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders, IV-TR, 2000: 93).
Emerson et al. (2006) similarly reported that ‘Conduct Disorder’ had a significantly higher
prevalence in lowest income quintiles. Examples of associated behaviours include theft,
truancy, bullying, and destruction of property (Piotrowska, 2012). Piotrowska (2012) noted
an inverse relationship with disadvantaged children experiencing increased behavioural
issues.
According to the participants in the current study, deprivation and social inequality need to be
addressed. For example, one participant from Rainford, focus group four, stated ‘you’ve got
to dig deep, well what’s going on in these peoples’ lives?’ ASB was perceived as being
influenced by structural inequality, yet this was not the only perceived cause. One participant
in Skelmersdale described late night use of a washing machine as being anti-social and that
the cause was simply being inconsiderate:
Yeah well, in my building one of my neighbours said to me yesterday that the
person upstairs had already received two warnings about noise because,
114
apparently, they were putting their washing machine on at ten to ten at night,
on like full spin so it would shake and stuff, and obviously that’s kind of under
that sort of thing as well… (P.4, Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
Whilst participants talked of structural issues, mental health and people being inconsiderate,
the key perceived causes identified were parenting and disrespect. The next section will
consider the role of parenting and disrespect in turn.
Parenting
One participant noted that a lack of parental investment (here noted in terms of time and
attentiveness) in their children’s lives may precipitate the later onset of ASB:
When I said before, about the three different schools, I think the affluent area
causes more problems… because there’s money, and for a lot, nine times out
of ten for those kids, it was a case of, ‘well I want to speak to my mum and
dad, but they don’t come in till about six o’clock and I’m back out with me
mates again so I’m just left there, so what am I going to do to get somebody’s
attention here? I’ll kick off’ (p.5, Rainford Focus Group 3)
There was a recurring mention of the influence of parents, or a lack of a good upbringing, in
affecting the likelihood of ASB in youths. The belief among participants was that time and
attention are important facets of parenthood. The participant quoted above went on to stress
the crucial role of parents:
I think there is, and you know again we go along in society saying, ‘well the
parents are this, the parents are that, they don’t do this’. I can understand
where they come from, and you know a child’s behaviour starts from a very
early age, and as parents if we don’t, not correct it because they have to be
individuals as well… but lead them down a path, then things are gonna go
wrong aren’t they… but what’s our standards, and parents’ standards is
different. (p.5, Rainford Focus Group 3)
The participant concedes here that there is a prevalent attitude in society which acknowledges
the role parents have in ‘correcting’ the behaviour of children. If parents ‘lead them down a
115
path’, then ‘things are gonna go wrong’ and that parents can be the first to be blamed
whenever behaviour goes awry. Interestingly, there was the focus on correcting ‘children’
and youths; once more reinforcing the view that ASB is a young person’s problem. Similarly,
another participant placed emphasis on parents having influence over their children’s
behaviour:
… yeah if you’re brought up with your parents saying it’s okay to swear at
your grandparents and to swear at the neighbours and to throw and spit things
at police then you’re going to get children who will grow up to do exactly the
same thing and do it during their teenage years and continue it as adults (p.5,
St Helens Focus Group 1).
This statement exemplifies the participant’s belief that the parents have full jurisdiction over
what their children believe is acceptable behaviour, placing responsibility on the parents to
teach their children what behaviours are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This is not
an uncommon perception. According to Gillies (2005) and McDowell (2004) family
members take the responsibility and have a moral duty to ensure their children develop into
‘good citizens’. There are connotations of parents and family as the ‘bedrock’ upon which
‘good parents’ and a ‘good society of the future’ are built (Edwards and Gillies, 2012: 66).
Jensen and Tyler (2012: 3) stated that ‘bad parenting’ and ‘problem families’ are increasingly
linked with propagating both economic and social malaise. Edwards and Duncan (1997)
purported that the blame is often directed towards lone parents and the working-class families
– whether this is fair or not. This was stated by Peters (2011) who highlights that the blame is
more specifically put on mothers rather than mothers and fathers. The next perceived cause
focused more specifically on one feature of parenting, inculcating a sense of respect and
awareness for others.
Disrespect
The narrative on parenting began to develop into consideration of respect:
… but I think also a lot of families, parents don’t, respect’s a two-way thing,
and I don’t think the children are shown respect. So how can parents expect
their children to show them respect and, you know, I was brought up to respect
my elders… (P.1, Rainford Focus Group 3)
116
With this statement ASB is due to a combination of poor parents, disrespect and low overall
standards. Respect has been a central talking point in relation to ASB and crime. In the
introduction, it was reported that ASB itself was assumed to be, ‘fundamentally caused by a
lack of respect for other people’ (Home Office, 2003: 7). It is interesting to note that
participants automatically responded to discussions of ASB impacts and causes by discussing
the importance of respect. Some participants also defined ASB in terms of respect, as one
Skelmersdale participant put it, ‘Erm, I think it’s like being disrespectful’ (P.2, Skelmersdale
Focus Group 1). Another participant in Rainford focused on respect, giving an example of
wearing a hat in church:
… you would say disrespectful as well as anti-social? Well I’ve encountered
people disrespectful in my life, in the Wigan area men used to come into the
church wearing hats, and in my day you didn’t do that. So when in my parish I
used to take a service I used to ask them to remove their hat, it wasn’t my
responsibility but I decided to. Don’t they realise they’ve got to remove their
hat? That’s the thinking now… I wouldn’t say that’s immoral, but it’s
disrespectful. (P.1)
It’s disrespectful… (P.4)
(Rainford Focus Group 1)
A link between disrespect and ASB was further built upon in another participant’s answer:
I think it is yeah… you know they, it’s totally different from when we were
younger, there’s no respect for your elders, there’s no respect for the police, no
respect for the fire service, for any emergency service, and I wouldn’t like to
be in their shoes. There’s no respect whatsoever, no one’s frightened of
anything… and I mean that… as in a younger generation they’re not
frightened of anything, there’s just no respect anywhere whether it be at
school, at home… but a lot of it comes from the home, definitely…
Definitely… (P.1, St Helens Focus Group 2)
117
In this response, the participant takes on a narrative of moral decline, that ‘it’s totally
different from when we were younger’. Whether this is true is another issue often based upon
perception and changing levels of tolerance (Mackenzie et al. 2010). In the earlier extract,
participant one appears to show some intolerance of one behaviour - namely, men who would
‘come into church wearing hats,’ and despite this not being perceived as immoral, the
participant would ‘ask them to remove their hat’ perceiving it to be ‘disrespectful’. This
issue was also explored by Millie (2006) who noted a relationship between tolerance, respect
and ASB. He later contended that proactive engagement with others is one of an ‘essential
foundation of tolerance’ (Millie, 2009: 172), but it is also context-dependent. According to
participant one in St Helens (focus group 2) respect may also be context related, claiming that
there is ‘just no respect anywhere whether it be at school, at home…’
Bannister and Kearns (2009) previously linked respect to ideas of civility. They advocated
that civility is a product of respect for other people and this ‘serves to reduce the need for our
own conduct to be tolerated by others.’ (Bannister and Kearns, 2009: 179). In their
foundations of tolerance model Bannister and Kearns (2009: 178) expounded that
underpinning factors, such as ‘the type of response we offer to unfavoured conduct’ relate to
whether we tolerate the conduct - and if we do, which form the tolerance assumes. Briefly,
according to Bannister and Kearns (2009), respect has two key roles, to increase our
willingness to empathise with others and to support our own civil conduct. They claimed that
having empathy towards others increases the likelihood that an individual will tolerate
behaviour they do not like. And the incivility of one’s own behaviour reduced, ‘the changes
that our behaviour should become the object of others’ tolerance.’ (Bannister and Kearns,
2009: 179). If behaviour does not match the civil and behavioural expectations of a context it
may not be tolerated. In turn this could be perceived as incivility.
Respect is also perceived as generational, and that there is now a lack of respect for the public
services. According to another focus group participant, this time in Rainford, disrespect leads
to fear in others:
… disrespect, upset, fear, I think it creates a lot of fear for people, especially
the elderly, and I think it’s about the way we live our individual lives … (P.1,
Rainford Focus Group 3)
118
Fear appears to provide a link between the impacts of ASB and disrespect. For others a link
was provided by perceived parental input. The suggestion is that ASB stems from the failed
transfer of respect from adult to child, and correspondingly from child to adult; and that
disrespect can lead to fear of others. A lack of reciprocity has been previously regarded as an
issue (see Sennett 2003). The New Labour government’s ‘Respect Action Plan’ (Respect
Task Force, 2006) has previously aimed to ‘enforce a culture of respect’. However what
aspects of disrespectful – or anti-social – behaviour they wanted to tackle was not clearly
defined. The evidence in this analysis suggests that, whilst respect can be loosely defined as
‘an expression of something that people intuitively understand’ (Respect Task Force, 2005:
5), there is nonetheless a perceived shared, ‘general knowledge’ amongst participants of what
it means to be respectful:
erm… yeah I think it’s just living your life to, you know, to certain rules that
you think, are promoting you to be respectful to other people you know, like
you say helping others, and just treating other people how you would want to
be treated. You know in a day-to-day situation, you’re at work, someone says
‘morning’ to you then you reply to people, you’re pleasant and you have
respect for others and show respect for others, and you know, you sort of work
within the rules and regulations and as I say you just treat others as you want
to be treated. (P.2, Rainford Focus Group 2)
The general understanding of respect discussed above involves the Golden Rule of ‘treating
other people how you want to be treated’. This has similar sentiments to the description of
respect mentioned in the Respect Action Plan (Respect Task Force, 2006). The claim is that it
‘relies on a shared understanding and clear rules and is strengthened by people acting
together…’ (Respect Action Plan, 2006: 5). The idea of reciprocal respect and the Golden
Rule maxim were clearly evident in the participant accounts regarding being respectful. The
implication here is that if a shared understanding is absent then disrespect or ASB may occur.
As a precursor of ASB, disrespect was quite commonly identified in the focus groups, the
claim being that some people just do not have the respect for others to inhibit their own
behaviour.
119
Individual factors and ASB
Alongside various contextual influences on ASB, the participants also suggested various
individual factors. One participant suggested that envy has an influence, a mentality of
‘you’ve got more than us’ (P.1 Rainford Focus Group 1). Others contended that it was about
survival, or related to a search for identity:
…but again it’s what [participant one] said, it’s about you know things like the
background they’re coming from, that behaviour to them is survival instinct to
a certain extent… (P.5)
It is… and its attention seeking as well… they need to, they’re seeking an
identity so whenever they do anything that’s anti-social it’s all to seek
attention and they get this attention all the time … (P.1)
(Rainford Focus Group 1)
The importance of the individual is highlighted here. Participant 1 notes that it is about
identity, essentially a sense of belonging, and ASB is simply attention seeking behaviour.
The stigma attached to living in areas perceived to be ‘bad’ can precipitate incidents of
discrimination, such as when an individual from these areas attempts to attain employment
(Reynolds, 1986, as cited in Papps, 1998). Evidence suggests that elderly residents’
perceptions of youths and ASB can be tainted by simply living in a ‘deprived area’ and the
stigma attached to that (Egan et al., 2012). If perceptions of ASB can be influenced and
shaped by the environment in which it occurs, then what is labelled as ASB may too be
tainted. Support for this was present during Focus Group 2 in St Helens where it was
suggested that not all individuals’ and young peoples’ behaviour can be regarded as ASB
simply because they are living in deprived areas or are from a ‘poor background’:
I think it’s in both, fifty-fifty really, fifty percent poor backgrounds and I think
it’s fifty percent of the richer backgrounds… It’s very different backgrounds
but it’s very similar their attitudes, the way that they put things across and I
would probably say more now for the richer kids or the richer people are
targeted more so than the poorer people… But then again you’re not to
120
differentiate those people, you’ve got to treat them people exactly the same.
(P.1, St Helens Focus Group 2)
The same participant went on to suggest:
… but like I say there’s good and bad everywhere. I live in a village, but
there’s good and bad in the village, you can live in the town centre and there’s
good and bad in the town centre … (P.1, St Helens Focus Group 2)
Converse to ASB being a purely contextual issue based upon deprivation, this participant
focused on the individual – in short; there are those who behave anti-socially in all areas, and
from all backgrounds. Whilst acknowledging that background and wealth play a part in
attitudes to behaviour, people should not nonetheless discriminate when interacting with
others, regardless of level of deprivation. The position adopted here very much affirms the
idea that ASB is not something unique to the disadvantaged; instead it is more of a personal
problem.
Alternatively, a participant from Skelmersdale, Focus Group 2 took the view that behaviour
is dependent upon factors such as who we are with and where we are:
I read something really interesting, and it was just everyone has a different
role for everything they are doing in their everyday life… so when you’re at
home, you’re just at home and you’re yourself, then when you go down the
pub and you’re with your mates you’re a different person, when you’re with
your friends you’re more lively you’re with your friends and you want to have
fun and you’re more energetic. And then obviously you could be with your
partner then and that’s a totally different side of you, so everyone has a
different role for everything they are doing every single day and it’s just peers
or other people that affect how we behave. So if you’re in a group with your
friends, especially young, and you’ve got nowhere to go, you’re gonna be on
the street anyway you’re gonna be running around so you’re with your mates,
you’re showing off, you’re like, your mate says go and smash that window in
and next thing you know you’re putting windows in just to get chased by the
police because you’ve got nothing to do. It’s more the fun of the chase, getting
121
chased around the estate. But you wouldn’t do that if you took your girlfriend
would you? Get chased by the police and smash that window? So I think it’s
right in a way, you do have different roles for different times, you know you
act differently in different situations. (P.2, Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
From this perspective, everyone adopts different roles for different situations. The likelihood
of being involved in ASB can be mediated by peers and the desire to be liked or to have a
group identity. Whilst some considered individual factors, participants in the focus groups
most often took a contextual view of the causes of ASB. This may be the contextual influence
of poverty, parental influence, peers or location.
In Chapter 1 it was suggested that ASB has been framed as a phenomenon intertwined with
the poor, resulting in potential ignorance over other sources of ASB in more advantaged
groups in society. Through analysis of how participants conceived the relationship between
deprivation and ASB, it is evident that there are shared notions of ASB occurring within areas
of deprivation. The revelation of more atypical examples of ASB in groups and organisations
outside of the norm warrants further exploration. As one participant put it, there is ‘good and
bad everywhere’, and this is regardless of wealth and background.
In summary, there were common perceptions of what may cause ASB across all three focus
group areas.
1. The first suggestion was the impact and influence that parents are thought to have on
preventing ASB at the source, through promoting values and respect that can
potentially reduce ASB.
2. Second was that peers and age, for example being young and in a group with other
people, in addition to feelings of boredom, desire to be liked and a lack of a sense of
purpose, could all contribute to the likelihood of ASB being committed.
3. Third, there was specific discussion of a lack of respect as a precursor to ASB which
was also quite heavily linked to parenthood.
Perceptions of ASB causes were also related to whether these were individual or contextual
explanations, with more emphasis being placed on the individual than the contextual by many
122
participants. External factors such as being from a deprived location were not often believed
to be an ‘excuse’ as not everyone from those areas may commit ASB. Some participants felt
that ASB is more of a personal problem rather than being environmental.
Moral explanations of ASB
As noted, the subjective definition of ASB may be so broad that economic crimes such as tax
evasion/avoidance could potentially be construed as causing annoyance, nuisance or harm to
other members of society and therefore be regarded as anti-social. The current study,
similarly, found uncommon types of behaviour that can be perceived as ASB. For instance,
the example of a loud washing machine has already been given. In Focus Group 1, in
Skelmersdale, participants also talked about smoking as ASB:
I’ve been on the train a few times where someone has just sat there and pulled
out a fag and smoked it in an enclosed area and I think that’s quite anti-social.
(P.5)
I hate it when people throw their lit cigarettes on the floor, they don’t step on
it or anything, I mean they shouldn’t throw it and step on it but… it’s worse
when its lit… and they throw it on grass or something and I’m like it’s still lit!
and kids are walking around, like children on the floor… that’s morally wrong
I think… because it’s kinda like a lot of people are against smoking anyway…
that’s added to like… the issue of why people don’t like smoking because it’s
creating more litter. (P.4)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
In this discussion, there was a shared idea that smoking in an ‘enclosed area’ can be ‘quite-
anti-social’. More specifically for the participants, it was the act of throwing lit cigarettes on
the ground, especially near children that was anti-social and ‘morally wrong’. The
acknowledgment is that it goes against wider held beliefs or norms; ‘a lot of people are
against smoking anyway…’, suggesting that an act may be both anti-social and morally
wrong for two key reasons:
1. The consequences it may have on others, and
123
2. Because smoking is not, in their perception, a widely endorsed social behaviour,
particularly when the cigarette is thrown on the ground.
This was a unique suggestion to this focus group. In Skelmersdale Focus Group 2 there was a
more abstract form of ASB discussed, far removed from the above example:
Too many people are selfish, the way the economy is… (P.3)
Yeah (P.2)
And the way that you see these three hundred pound a day expenses that they
claim for having… (P.3)
Greedy, greedy! (P.2)
…having a sleep in the House of Commons and that’s it. I was watching it the
other day and that little child outside of … there was about fifteen people sat
in there, the following day it was about Google’s tax… they were paying one
hundred and thirty million pound, it was full. (P.3)
It was full (P.4)
Yeah. (P.2)
They’re corrupt no matter what party they’re from, what their politics are,
they’re all corrupt. (P.3)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
These comments were in response to a question about what behaviours they would perceive
as ‘morally good’ or ‘morally bad’, and whether there is any potential link between ASB and
the morality of acts. Participant 3 associated morally bad behaviour with MPs fiddling their
expenses. This was referring to the expenses scandal of 2009, when certain MPs had
allegedly misused allowances and expenses using fake receipts, initiating something of a
124
moral panic within the UK (Flinders, 2012). Not only was this behaviour denounced as being
anti-social, but it was also morally wrong:
R: Going back to your point on expenses… when thinking about the way an
MP thought when they carried out their claims for their expenses, and their
behaviour, which part was moral or immoral?
Their crime… (P.3)
Their way of thinking… yeah (P.2)
I mean one of them claimed for underfloor heating his outdoor tennis court,
and another one in his big mansion and big lake, a duckhouse (P.3)
Yeah a duckhouse! For his pond! Outside his house like! (P.2)
And you’re, like that, as if he needs the money? It wasn’t a pond, it was a lake.
Very immoral. (P.3)
Yeah, but anti-social as well, because you’re sending the wrong message.
(P.2)
Well criminal as well because they committed fraud. (P.3)
Yeah. (P.2)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
Further questioning and in-group discussion led to an enthused conversation regarding
the MPs’ expenses scandal as ASB. The identified reasons for these acts being ASB were
varied. One participant noted it as a crime and thus immoral, others cited that the items
were luxurious in nature, and that the ‘wrong message’ was being sent out to society. The
MPs’ actions were seen as anti-social, immoral and criminal. This association links back
to the contention that whether an act is perceived as anti-social, or not, may be dependent
upon the extent to which it matches the behavioural expectations and norms of a specific
125
time and place (Millie, 2008). Furthermore, distinctions between ‘anti-social’ and
‘criminal’ labels are less distinct than might be imagined. In this example the linking
feature is the perceived immorality of the action. It was claimed that the MPs’ ‘way of
thinking’ is immoral. There appears to be in tandem a contention that a behaviour can be
labelled as ASB because there is a perception it may cause offence (Millie, 2008), as in
this focus group where the MPs’ actions were ‘sending the wrong message’. This
example goes against evidence discussed earlier regarding ASB as a ‘poor person’s
problem’ pervading only the most disadvantaged in society.
Interestingly, this above discussion was from one of the most deprived locations in the
study in Skelmersdale. The implication is that perceptions of ASB, within this locale at
least, stretch far beyond the typical ‘yob’ and low-level nuisance behaviour. Participants
in Skelmersdale did initially describe the usual types of youth behaviours, such as young
people congregating or littering. However, there was an acknowledgment that anti-social
and immoral behaviour can both be extended to include more atypical behaviours, such
as the MPs’ expenses scandal. Moving on to St Helens Focus Group 1, there were further
associations made between economic crime, ASB and morality. In response to a vignette
(scenario 7) that was given in the focus group where a person is committing tax evasion
(overstating deductions and declaring less income than they are earning), one participant
claimed that:
Well there’s a budget bucket for everyone to go around… and if they’re taking
a little bit more because they think they need it, there’s other people who need
it more. So they’re stealing again, so it is immoral and it is anti-social… (P.4)
Yeah, ’cause your tax is used for the education and for the NHS that
everybody uses… and it’s free… unless you want to pay privately, erm… so
you’re depriving your community, your land area of money which you’ve
earned from there… erm… and there are enough good accountants if you’re,
you know, that will help you save legally, money. There is sufficient help to
bring their tax down erm… [legally] and then there’s the ones who, you know,
people bank in different areas and pretend they don’t have money, you know,
to hand, and big companies… (P.5)
126
Tax avoidance and all… (P.4)
Yeah, the big companies who are notoriously bad, and it’s the individual low
earner who gets taxed ridiculous because they pay VAT and your contribution
to your insurance and then you get taxed at a ridiculously low level of earnings
as well… (P.5)
Yeah, so it’s like… (P.4)
These big companies and these big company directors and footballers who can
just get away with earning loads of money and paying very little tax. I think
they are immoral. (P.5)
(St Helens Focus Group 1)
It is evident from the above discussion that deliberately avoiding paying taxes is seen as
immoral, anti-social and definitely not an acceptable behaviour for these participants.
Similar to the discussion above in Skelmersdale, there is once again the idea that ASB is
not perceived as just stereotypical ‘yobbish’ behaviour, but also present in groups other
than the young and disadvantaged. This is unconventional in that it is not often reported
that such actions are ASB. This discussion occurred in an area with a mixed level of
deprivation. Like the participants in Skelmersdale, initial thoughts on ASB in St Helens
tended to cover typical examples, but these extended to other behaviours outside the
common spectrum when specifically probed, and were also linked to issues of morality.
The perceptions of participants here suggest that such actions are ASB, they cause harm
or distress, whether directly or indirectly, and are also immoral.
Conversely, within the more affluent Rainford focus group 2, there were perceptions that
behaviour such as benefit fraud is also ASB. Thus there was a contrast between the type
of economic crime and ‘anti-social’ behaviours already discussed, as mostly being the
behaviour of MPs, ‘big corporations’ or ‘big company directors’, to those who may be
claiming benefits that they are not entitled to at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
In response to vignette scenario 4, where a person has discovered a neighbour
committing benefit fraud (claiming money not entitled to) two participants agreed that
this was ASB and wrong:
127
Yeah, of course it is, the individual, it is anti-social because at the end of the
day it’s wrong what they’re doing and everybody else who works doesn’t
claim benefits, so… for me… erm… ’cause they’re out of work, there should
be a moral stance that they have, so… for me it is anti-social behaviour.
Erm… I think it’s somebody who doesn’t give, well, they’re not bothered
they’ll just claim for whatever they can, for me it’s anti-social behaviour. (P.1)
Yeah I’d agree… yeah… erm… you know you, you’re perhaps taking away
that money from someone else who really needs it… you know, so you…
you’re telling lies, it’s fraud, and that, yeah... I just think it is anti-social
behaviour, it’s not something that you should be doing and I think it’s
disrespectful to other people who are, you know, claiming by the book sort of
thing. (P.2)
(Rainford Focus Group 2)
This focus group involved participants from one of the least deprived locations. The
discussion also covered a lack of respect, earlier suggested as a potential catalyst for the onset
of ASB. What this example had in common with the discussions of business and MP frauds
was the potential consequences for others. This awareness and consideration of how the act
may cause harm, distress, or annoyance was prevalent for each example.
In summary, while stereotypical examples of ASB were given, more atypical behaviours such
as tax evasion, benefit fraud, and smoking in enclosed spaces were also perceived to be anti-
social. This challenges the notion that ASB is primarily a poor person’s problem. Many
participants appeared to adopt a consequentialist perspective, that acts were ASB based on
their impacts on others or on wider society. There were further examples of behaviours that
participants perceived as ASB such as online social media bullying; however the above
examples were more commonly shared.
Reciprocity of everyday morality
During discussions on everyday morality and how to regulate everyday interactions, the
notion of ‘respect’ came to the fore in all focus group discussions. In Skelmersdale Focus
128
Group 1, one participant made the point that ‘respect’, and being considerate of others, is a
reciprocal process, one which involves an internal understanding of knowing right from
wrong. Earlier in the thesis, it was acknowledged that enforcement of respect is not
conducive to creating tolerance and a level of mutual respect amongst individuals in society
(e.g. Sennett, 2003). The suggestion here is that respect at the most fundamental level is
about understanding the needs of others within society and mutually encouraging others to do
the same. Attempting to enforce respect - and therefore not reciprocating that very same
respect you are striving to attain - is contradictory. The sentiment of mutual respect was
shared in the current study. The notion of treating one another the same has roots in the
‘Golden Rule’, a maxim that is claimed to be universal and has existed in myriad cultures and
religions2. Millie (2016) has described how the rule, like Kant’s Categorical Imperative, is
reciprocal in the sense that we must treat others in the same way that we would expect to be
treated. In fact, this sentiment was very much echoed by participants in the current study who
stated that:
I think it’s, erm… knowing right from wrong and showing respect to others…
treating other[s] like you, you’d like to be treated yourself. (P.5)
It’s like we all like to think we’re being treated the same, we’re all being
treated equally; we’re not if people are doing that then is it? (P.6)
No… (P.1; P.3; P.4)
it’s not fair on everyone else (P.6)
Yeah I agree with, just generally knowing right from wrong… (P.2)
Yeah I agree with what they say… it’s just treating others and how you’d like
to be treated… (P.3)
yeah being respectful to others… Just treat them the way you’d like to be
treated yourself… (P.6)
2 For instance, in the Bible the Golden Rule is stated as “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the Prophets”. (Matthew 7:12, The New King James Version)
129
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
There was widespread agreement that having respect and being fair are important aspects of
what everyday morality means to the participants. Through attempting to ‘treat them the way
you’d like to be treated yourself’ there is emphasis on the reciprocal nature of morality and it
is possible for everyone to maintain respect and treat others the same.
As previously noted, according to Skorupski (1993) defining morality is impossible, but the
closest definition that can be got is to define its ‘sense’ or general purpose. The ‘sense’ that
participants attributed to morality was one based upon mutual agreement and reciprocal
behaviour – and this was often expressed using the language of the golden rule. However,
there were other aspects of morality discussed such as the influence of family, culture and
religion on moral development – although again these were in terms of the golden rule:
Erm, morality I always put together with more of a religious context, if people
have got moral behaviour etc. I don’t know if I’m right on that, but that’s
where I think old fashioned ideas of morality come from. They stem from,
erm… religious ideals, so I automatically kind of have more; I suppose I feel a
bit more comfortable talking about ethics. So if I’m going to talk about a code
of behaviour based on morality, erm… based on morals, based on ethics, it all
comes under the same thing I think, erm… treating people as you want to be
treated yourself. (P.4)
Yeah I agree, I think, erm… also yeah it comes from religion and it’s also
cultural as well. But everyday morality I think is just, you know, a general
code of behaviour which everyone should basically know the right, right from
wrong. (P.1)
Erm, pretty much the same I think, it’s basically imbued in you from when
you’re young, usually from your parents or from religious beliefs what you’re
meant to believe is what’s moral and what is not. You don’t go robbing a shop
that’s immoral then you, your behaviour is imbued in you from a young age.
(P.2)
130
I agree. (P.3)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 3)
Alongside religion and family there is talk of morality also being linked to cultural factors.
This is reminiscent of research cited earlier (Scheffler, 1992: 122, as cited in Van den Hoven,
2006) suggesting that a ‘common morality’ we all have and share would be ‘a conviction so
widely shared in our culture, and so deeply entrenched, that outside of philosophy it is
scarcely ever articulated, let alone explicitly challenged’. Clearly, religious ideas and family
influence can feed in to such cultural norms.
According to New Labour’s Respect Action Plan (Respect Task Force, 2006:5) ‘We should
build a culture of respect for the modern age, based on values of mutuality and shared
responsibility rather than deference and hierarchy’. From this perspective ‘respect’ is a
cornerstone to such cultural norms. In the focus groups, religion was mentioned as almost a
footnote in some discussions, bar one participant who proclaimed religion as his moral
cornerstone. That said, in Rainford, Focus Group 1 there was support for a more religious
foundation of everyday morality:
Well for me morality is attached to my religion which is Christianity. Erm,…
so I try to live by the rules of, you know, what Christianity tells me. I try to
live that kind of life. But, that’s my first thought about it. Of course morality
will apply to many other things, people who are atheist live with a kind of
morality and that’s nothing to do with religion is it? Erm… so it varies from
group to group, whoever you’re talking to. But for me, it’s all to do with my
faith which is Christianity and morality springs from that, all the social mores
and norms really that I try to live by. But then there are general social mores
and norms out there aren’t there, that the general public, maybe people who
are not Christians live by so they are very moral people. (P.1, Rainford Focus
Group 1)
For this participant there was a strong sense of Christian morality; yet there is an
acknowledgment that individuals with no faith, or different faiths, do still have moral codes
and norms to live by. A relevant point is that talk regarding morality within Rainford was
often quite heavily focused on religion as the group included some residents involved with
131
local church organisations. Despite this, the subjectivity of morality and the malleable nature
of individuals’ moral codes were not lost in these discussions. The reciprocal component of
morality, such as treating one another the same and with mutual respect was reiterated in
tandem with religious suggestions of morality. In Rainford Focus Group 2 perceptions of
what everyday morality constitutes continued to be laden with descriptions of how
complementary, ‘good’ behaviour is intrinsic to being a moral member of society:
Yeah, morality I think is respect, erm… you know, having respect for other
people, other peoples’ properties, to a certain degree having respect for
yourself. And it’s how people are brought up as well, I think you’re brought
up to have the right morals, to respect others, to respect yourself, authority,
respect authority, then I think that, you know, makes for people to have good
morals… (P.2)
Erm… morality I think is doing the right thing… what society perceives to be
the right thing generally in terms of human behaviour, respecting people,
erm…some people I think do try and live their lives to kind of a moral
compass and… erm… I don’t know whether other people don’t or whether
they just don’t think about it, but I think morality is about trying to do the right
thing and respect other people, treat people how you’d like to be treated. (P.3)
(Rainford Focus Group 2)
In these statements there is further reinforcement of the reciprocal nature of morality, but also
recognition of it being ‘what society perceives to be the right thing.’ Elsewhere it was noted
that there may not be one ‘true morality’, or no clear-cut comprehension of what it means to
behave the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way. Whilst some talked in terms of the golden rule, others
rejected a ‘gold standard’ by which all societies and people can be judged. This idea was
presented by participants in Skelmersdale, Focus Group 3, where one participant claimed:
… because some people can deem one thing moral, and I’m not saying this
again, you know religious morality and personal morality and sometimes they
clash dramatically and then if you’re trying to force one and then the other
there’s literally borders between borders and borders when it comes to
132
morality. Some people deem an action of shooting a criminal as being good…
(P.2)
R: So it’s just what people think and what people do is different?
Yeah I think it’s more ideology isn’t it than morality (P.2)
And also as well, ’cause that’s two different interesting arguments then isn’t it,
because the broad definition of ASB and our morals can get blurred between
people because there’s a difference between people’s, you said [Participant 4],
cultural ideals and what people think is wrong or right, I think this gets really,
really blurred within the lines of the law as well. (P.1)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 3)
The identified conflict between a universal golden rule and there being a multiplicity of moral
codes and diversity in societies, is a source of contention that raises the issue of moral
relativism and how context influences perception. As noted, Millie (2016: 34) critiqued moral
relativism that, despite being seemingly tolerant of other ways of living, may also be ‘tolerant
of actions and omissions that are generally regarded as morally intolerable’. However, there
is room for relativist interpretation and different individual/societal perceptions (Bannister
and Kearns, 2012; Mackenzie et al. 2010). In the current study perceptions of ASB were
based upon subjective perceptions, and interpretation.
If there is no gold standard by which to judge all others’ behaviours, then attempts to define
which actions are moral or not – or even which are anti-social and which are not - become
blurred, dependent on the situation they occurred in. That said, participants did not convey
this as a problem for their own sense of what it means to have an everyday morality. Whilst
acknowledging the blurring of boundaries, both within ASB and morality, there is still an
overarching theme of morality being a concept that needs mutual effort between people.
In summary, the experiences and perceptions of participants regarding morality appear to be
heavily influenced by the relationship between culture, respect, religion, and the reciprocal
nature of behaviour that affirms those standards between people. It was suggested that
morality is more individualistic than universal, that moral codes differ dependent on context
133
and other variables. The relative importance of context was emphasised by participants in
each focus group location. Whilst boundaries may become blurred from society to society or
culture to culture, the one constant for each participant was that morality is based upon a
reciprocal relationship between individuals.
ASB and immorality
During the earlier stages of the thesis it was noted that ASB was often linked to an assumed
moral decline within British society. This was considered by both the public and British
government to be a causal mechanism for ASB and crime. For instance, according to the
London Evening Standard (2007: 1), 83 per cent of people thought that moral standards were
dropping. This of course does not mean there was an actual moral decline however the
emphasis of government projects to tackle ASB have emphasised the lack of morality, and
respect, as causes for ASB. The social theory of Norbert Elias (2000) - in particular his work
on the civilising process - has been noted as providing a useful framework to examine the
governance of ASB in the UK (Millie, 2009; Powell and Flint, 2009). Civilising offences
such as the Respect and Anti-Social Behaviour Agendas aimed to create cultural shifts in
society to eliminate incivility. Civilising offences resonate with government projects aimed at
addressing and improving the social conduct of groups within society that are deemed to be
not in line with the rest of society (Millie, 2009). Key characteristics such as the
problemization and shaming of behaviours are examples of the civilising process. The issue is
that the mechanisms of ASB management aimed at countering a perceived decline in civility
can, paradoxically, serve as a device of exclusion for behaviour that is not in line with the rest
of society. The focus of civilising offensives is to implement self-governance of perceived
problematic behaviour yet conversely these can lead to social exclusion without tackling the
underpinning social dynamics.
Understandings of how perceptions of a moral decline relate to understandings of ASB could
help inform interventions geared towards tackling such behaviour. Bearing this in mind, the
current analysis revealed support among participants for the view that (im)morality and ASB
are linked. For instance, in Rainford, participants felt that to behave in an anti-social way was
not conducive to living a moral life:
134
There is a link between it isn’t there. If you’re living a moral life, you don’t
engage in anti-social behaviour. (P.1)
Anti-social behaviour yeah. (P.4)
Morality encompasses it, it goes beyond those words really (P.3)
If you’re engaging in anti-social behaviour then you’ve got to question the
morals of that person. (P.1)
The anti-social behaviour is dealing with it in the group, morality goes to how
you behave when you’re on your own and nobody sees you. (P.3)
(Rainford Focus Group 1)
According to participant 1, the link between morality and ASB is very simple. If you are a
moral individual, then you do not ‘engage in ASB’, an opinion shared with participant 4. This
sentiment was further bolstered by a participant in another Rainford focus group:
ASB shows a lack of morality so… if you had the right morals you wouldn’t
be committing that type of behaviour, so therefore there is a link between the
two. (P.3, Rainford Focus Group 2.)
The suggestion here is that ASB itself conveys a lack of morality; to be involved in ASB is
associated with having a lack of morality. That said, according to a participant from
Skelmersdale:
You know what? I probably used to think that they’d go hand in hand, they
don’t do they? I mean you could be a genuine, generally a good person but
have the occasional slip up, or have the occasional inconsideration you know
like... blasting your music through the walls… it doesn’t make you a bad
person it just makes you stupid… (P.2, Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
The case is made here that you may be a ‘genuine’ and ‘good person’ but still have the
occasional ‘slip up’. It may be over simplistic to equate ASB to a lack of morality. There is
135
recognition that people do make mistakes, but that does not mean they should be labelled or
stigmatised as immoral or bad people. An individual who lives what could be considered a
‘good moral life’ is still capable of behaving in a morally ‘bad’ manner. For example, no one
lives an entirely morally good life, despite claims for the existence of a ‘moral majority’. This
could, like ASB, be an issue of perception. What one person perceives as immoral, another
may not.
There was nonetheless one participant in St Helens focus group 3 who noted that, whether a
behaviour is labelled as immoral or moral can be determined by the amount of thought that is
‘put into it’:
… but you have to think how much thoughts put into it… I think there’s good
and bad behaviours but there’s also the thought behind what you do…
Someone who is really nice in the day, but isn’t doing it to be nice, isn’t
necessarily doing a moral behaviour, they’re just doing that and it happens to
be good. (P.3, St Helens Focus Group 3)
From this perspective, descriptions of a link between ASB and morality are based upon the
amount of consideration given prior to the occurrence of an action. In terms of ASB,
potentially the same logic could be applied to those who it is claimed do not think about the
consequences of their actions. Yet, despite the disassociation mentioned between morality
and ASB here, there was still more support for the notion of a link between morality and
general behaviour:
I mean your morals are how you believe, and then your behaviour is how you
act on them… but then there’s the grey area in between isn’t there… Like you
could have all the intention to be a good person but through your actions…
Through your actions you might make a couple of mistakes along the way…
but it’s just general… (P.3)
Well I think there is a slight link… but I think there can easily not be a
relationship as well because you could be very moral in a lot of areas and then
totally not in others… you could be a lovely person, always well-mannered…
you know not murder and that kind of stuff, but you might throw litter… you
136
know? But I think it does link when it is… when it also has the thought
process as the morals and then you act on it, so I think it’s kind of
intertwined… You know… (P.4)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
In this discussion, the argument for a link once more reverted back to the claim that morality
is the thought process and behaviour is the ‘by-product’ of the said process. Although, one
further claim here is that there is a ‘grey area’ in between this process and action mechanism.
In this example, morality may be the cognitive aspect of proceedings and behaviour the
action, but that is not enough to determine whether someone is immoral or moral. They may
be a ‘good person’ but just make mistakes, hence the ‘grey area in between’. Participant 4
had the view that everyone may be moral in some respects and immoral in others, dependent
upon perception and context.
There is evidence to suggest that the relationship between crime and morality is often
neglected by students of crime (see Antonaccio and Tittle, 2008). According to Gottfredson
and Hirschi (2010:88), morality ‘typically [refers] to how people feel about their acts rather
than to the likelihood that they will or will not commit them’. Conversely, Etzioni (1998)
took a reductionist view where human behaviour is perceived through cost-benefit
calculations. From this perspective, Etzioni contended that individuals often behave
unselfishly and irrationally, choosing the more dutiful response or through refraining from
committing illegal acts. The reason for behaving in such a fashion, according to Etzioni, is
that people are guided by moral principles and values. In this vein of thought, what would be
regarded as a ‘lack of morality’ (P.3, Rainford Focus Group 2) is almost as a predictor of
anti-social and criminal behaviour. Etzioni (1998) further suggested that a lack of morality
predicting criminal behaviour holds firm even when there is variation in how morality has
actually been measured. Furthermore, evidence appears to be consistent with the suggestion
that moral commitments and moral feelings convey some preventative power in terms of
influencing the onset of criminal behaviour (Hannon et al., 2001; Rogers et al., 2005). This
idea appeared to be shared by three participants in Rainford Focus Group 2:
Erm… Define it as people who have got no morals, people who don’t want to
conform to society, or don’t want to conform to how they should behave. And
people who’ve just got no respect for anybody or anything, they just want to
137
do what they want to do, erm… without prejudice or anything, they’re not
interested in anything they’re… the area they live, the environment, they’re
not interested in anything it’s just what they want to do and they’ll do it,
doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks… (P.1)
Yeah I think it’s lack of respect for others and lack of respect for themselves…
Erm… you know and just… yeah just think it’s that really… (P.2)
Erm… Yeah I agree with that I think morality is erm… being good rather than
bad, trying to do the right thing, erm… trying to help other people and erm…
try and treat people how you’d like to be treated yourself and conforming to
erm… standards and laws and rules laid down by society as a whole so that we
can live in erm… in peace.
(P.4 Rainford Focus Group 2)
Perceptions of the relationship between morality and ASB, or criminality, were dominated by
notions that moral beliefs and standards are the counteracting mechanisms against such
behaviour. The views conveyed here in Rainford Focus Group 2 suggest that morality is
‘being good rather than bad’ and it is conforming to ‘standards and laws and rules’, referring
to morality as being the preventative force. In this example, being moral is the opposite of
behaving anti-socially. Etzioni (1998) further suggests that moral beliefs are a useful concept
in research mainly because people often reflect a good personal definition of what morality
means to them in relation to violations of the law. In relation to the present study, perceptions
of a link between everyday morality and ASB were saturated with participant narratives of
‘bad morality’ being ASB and anything which reflects a lack of respect or consideration of
others.
Contrastingly, there are identified shortcomings in terms of how morality relates to criminal
or anti-social behaviour. For example, Antonacci and Tittle (2008) note that the measurable
impact a lack of morality has on criminal behaviour is not yet fully explored or studied. They
further reported that morality has not been identified as the main influential factor in
conforming behaviour. It could be that morality is a single component in a complex network
of conforming behaviour. It was reported by participants that there are a variety of
contributing factors in terms of what precedes the onset of ASB or criminal behaviour,
138
although much emphasis was placed upon a lack of morality being evident in those who
behave anti-socially. That said, the degree to which an anti-social act was deemed immoral or
moral seemed to depend upon individual perceptions and the consequence of the behaviour, a
theme I return to.
The perceived link between ASB and everyday morality was evident when participants were
discussing either a lack of morals in the perpetrator or the presence of good morals in those
who do not commit ASB. In St Helens one participant was of the view that morality is
universal and built upon perception:
My… initial thoughts on morality are… it’s something that, in one way it’s
ubiquitous in us all… in that we all have some sort of moral compass in life…
but again… it’s all about the perception of what we think is moral as opposed
to what someone else thinks of it… So, my first thought is morality is
something that is sort of ingrained in us all… it’s kind of there to, again, sort
of guide your everyday behaviour, and even your perceptions of whether
someone else is doing something, that it might be, urm… you think is wrong
but it’s just wrong to you and only you. So I believe it’s there sort of to help us
make the decisions between right and wrong, and maybe even good and evil,
that sort of thing… (P.1, St Helens Focus Group 3)
It is interesting to note that in each focus group morality was often described as the ‘guiding’
force that can influence our everyday behaviour. There is a claim that morality is subjective,
dependent upon perception and context similar to previous participants’ suggestions. The
difference here is that there is a counter claim that morality is ‘ingrained in us all’ and is there
to ‘help us make the decisions between right and wrong’. Participant perceptions of morality
and ASB further conveyed that good morals may prevent unwanted or inappropriate
behaviours. The notion that internal constraints such as ‘good’ morals may counteract
inappropriate behaviours is not unique to this finding. For instance, Kempf-Leonard and
Morris (2012) have discussed social control theory (SCT) as an alternative explanation of
why people offend and what internal constraint measures influence this. SCT explains why
people offend through the relationship between rules and behaviour, and internal constraint
mechanisms developed through childhood. Kempf-Leonard and Morris (2012) claim that
deviant behaviour is a consequence of inadequate internal constraints. Those offenders who
139
violate social norms or societal values may still hold the same values as other people, but
they are not likely to conform due to this inadequate development of internal constraints.
Interestingly, the current study found that multiple participants in each area did believe that a
lack of self-regulation, in terms of morals and values, could contribute to later anti-social and
criminal offending
Despite this, not all researchers agree that SCT provides a fully reliable explanation of
inclinations to behave in a criminal or deviant fashion. For example, Antonaccio and Tittle
(2008) have investigated the predictive strength of SCT. They claimed that understanding
personal characteristics, such as self-control, predict ‘misconduct’ in behaviour. For example,
they note that empirical research on self-control, crime and morality not only suggest it is
important to consider these when looking at preventative measures, but they are also
important in identifying crime causation. Yet, personal moral principles and internal
constraints may still function in inhibiting crime and deviance, even in the face of large
economic and other social changes. Given these possibilities, assessment of the powers of
self-control and morality to prevent deviant behaviour is especially important in this
environment. The means through which self-control and moral values can be developed is
frequently suggested to be through moral education and communication.
Perceptions of a link between morality and behaviour were described as the relationship
between cognition and behaviour. According to most participants’ discussions, morality was
the premeditative stage whilst behaviour was the outcome of this process. There were
arguments against a link between ASB and morality, namely due to the subjective nature of
what is moral. Perception was noted as integral to this process, but also the blurring of
boundaries between morality, immoral and ASB was problematic when labelling behaviours
one way or the other. Perceptions in this study suggest that some do believe that ASB is
immoral, and linked to a lack of moral education or failure on both parents and academic
institutions. However, parents were often first and foremost claimed to be at fault. A link
between poor moral values and likelihood of later offending behaviour was a frequently
described perception in the current study.
To summarise, it is evident from the current study that there is support in public perceptions
for a link between morality and ASB. By using less open-ended questioning and in-depth
group discussions similar to the present study, further research may help understand the
140
relationship between morality and ASB. Further investigation into the relationship between
ASB and everyday morality would help illuminate just how much of an influence generally
regarded ‘good’ or ‘bad’ morals have on the potential onset of anti-social or criminal
behaviour. The present study suggests that morality and ASB are linked, yet this is
determined by the impact it has on others and the ‘level’ of morality the perpetrator is
perceived to have - for example whether regarded as having low morals or no morals.
According to this analysis a lack of morals is perceived to be a contributing factor in the
occurrence of ASB.
ASB, immorality and intolerance
A further example of a perceived link between morality and ASB was in Skelmersdale Focus
Group 1, where a link was immediately created between ASB and immorality when one
participant described their experience with a neighbour:
I got to the point where I was leaving my house at stupid o’clock in the
morning and coming back at stupid o’clock in the night and I was coming
back crying because the music was just [imitates loud music noise] (P.2)
Yeah (P.1; P.4; P.6)
So yes, it is extremely immoral. (P.2)
Yeah it’s definitely wrong, like you say it is a common occurrence in this
situation but if it’s just once, it’s not as bad, but if it’s more… (P.4)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
There was substantial support that excessively loud music was ‘extremely immoral’ and was
‘definitely wrong’. However, one participant, interestingly, did note that persistence was the
problem - if it’s ‘just once’ it is not ‘as bad’, it could be tolerated. Persistence is a recognised
aspect of defining whether an action is anti-social (Millie et al., 2005). In this context,
perhaps persistence is also a measure of whether this act is also perceived as ‘extremely
immoral’. It is important to mention that participant 2 commented that the individuals playing
141
the music were from another culture, where playing music loud late at night may be ‘morally
acceptable in their society’:
…but at the same time, the amount of neighbours we’ve had… it’s only been
the foreign ones that have done that [played loud music]. So is that morally
acceptable in their society as opposed to what is in ours? (P.2, Skelmersdale
Focus Group 1)
This brings a return to a relativist position. Who is truly the anti-social party, the one
playing the music or the one complaining? The debate between who is being anti-
social and who is not may be linked to issues of tolerance (Bannister et al, 2006;
Millie, 2006). If what is regarded as anti-social is specific to certain individuals or
groups, then even potentially mildly rude or uncivil behaviours could be conceived as
ASB. Another participant did agree that what is acceptable in this situation varies:
Yeah, it varies and is it acceptable that once they’ve said you know you’ve
knocked on the neighbour’s door and said ‘we’re going to have a party
tonight’ it’s gonna be a bit loud is it alright if… (P.1)
If it’s once in a while then it’s great, it’s when it’s a common occurrence that
it’s causing distress to the neighbours, so it must be quite frequent and
substantial for it to be doing that… (P.3)
(Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
The suggestion that courtesy might mitigate some of the immorality of the concern was
suggested, alongside the issue of persistence. However, not all participants felt that acts could
be labelled as both ASB and immoral. A debate on the link between ASB and immorality
surfaced during Rainford Focus Group 1, where participants were discussing whether ASB
was also immoral:
Erm,… yeah. That’s anti-social, smashing someone’s window. I’m not sure
you’d say it’s immoral, but immoral is… people would do lots of immoral
things don’t they, that we would term as immoral… (P.4)
Yeah… (P.3; P.5)
142
So… erm, and society would say that was immoral, whether they say it’s
anything to do with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Muslim or whatever, erm…
It’s a difficult one, you’ve got to dig deep… (P.4)
(Rainford Focus Group 1)
Here the participant questioned whether the act of smashing another person’s window could
be construed as immoral. The questioning delineates between whether the participant would
perceive this as immoral due to personal religious beliefs. The issue of identifying whether
ASB is seen as immoral appears to be influenced by personal standards and perceptions of
what is moral and immoral - as opposed to others’ views. Once more there is a hint of moral
relativism. Similarly, a participant in Rainford Focus Group 2 wrestled with the labelling of
low-level ASB as being immoral:
I mean the incident with the eggs you could say it’s just childish behaviour,
just teenagers having a bit of fun. But to me it is ASB because you know, it is
disrespectful to, you know, to us as individuals because they’re actually
throwing stuff onto our property. And I think it is ASB because of the lack of
respect. You know, a lack of morals really, they think it’s okay to throw eggs
at other peoples’ property. And also I think when you’re in your own house
you should feel safe… to think that there are people just walking around and
doing that for a bit of fun, I just think it’s not nice and it is ASB. (P.2,
Rainford Focus Group 2)
Despite some participants’ apparent difficulties in labelling some acts of ASB as immoral,
when presented with vignette scenarios - such as the above example of throwing eggs - there
was support for ASB being both immoral and wrong.
ASB and consequences
Through the use of vignettes the current investigation could identify how participants gauged
the moral properties of different examples, albeit not definitively across all groups. The
suggestion by some was that the consequences of the anti-social act were important. For
143
example, one participant in Rainford Focus Group 2 claimed that littering was both anti-
social and morally wrong due to its impact on others and on the environment:
I think it’s morally wrong and anti-social as well because… when people are
talking about people dropping litter out of the car windows or just dropping
litter when they’re walking along, or not disposing of their own household
waste properly, it does have an effect on other people in society, an effect on
the environment, and on the community. Unless people think about other
people and the affect that they’re having on them, if they just carry on doing
that because they don’t care and they can, then, it shows their own lack of care
and consideration for other people and maybe their own standards of morals
are either very low or non-existent, and what kind of world would we be in if
everybody just had no rules at all and they just did whatever they wanted
whether they were offending other people or not… em… I just don’t think it’s
right…
(P.4, Rainford Focus Group 2)
The emphasis here is consequentialist, the ‘effect on other people in society… environment…
community’. Those who behaved in this way were thought to have either had low morals or
no morals. There was further consequentialist support for littering being immoral amongst
participants in Skelmersdale:
R: Do you think that’s morally bad?
Yeah it is morally bad, because yeah, we have a system, we have a refuse
collection and you can phone up and, you have to pay now, but nonetheless
you can get it to the dump. So why not do that, why just dump it on the estate
and make a mess where everyone else lives as well? (P.5, Skelmersdale Focus
Group 2)
There is the claim that littering is a ‘morally bad’ act due to its consequences in making ‘a
mess where everyone lives’.
144
Returning to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, littering is seen as immoral as it breaches a
moral imperative not to litter where someone else lives (because we would not want others to
litter where we live). Kant’s philosophy on morality is deontological, focusing on whether
actions conform to a moral law, namely the Categorical Imperative. Kant maintained an
emphasis on the need for a reciprocal respect between individuals and the self. The same
notion of reciprocity of respect and adherence to a ‘moral law’, or Categorical Imperative,
was apparent in the current study; but there was also a strong emphasis on consequences. It is
also worth mentioning that other vignette scenarios regarding situations involving tax
evasion, benefit fraud, youths congregating, loud music and illegal parking received a
mixture of responses as to whether they were ASB, moral, immoral or amoral. However,
littering was the more vehemently discussed ASB that was deemed to have a high level of
immorality. For most participants, the notion that ASB is wrong or immoral was related to
consequences, linking the behaviour itself with its effect on others.
ASB, what should be, and what is
Morality may influence behaviour, criminal or otherwise, but this may be limited in its
practical applications. According to Haan (1982) morality is much more than mere
observable actions and empiricists are susceptible to believing that the facts we observe are
the whole truth. Haan (1982) gives the example of observed moral actions, claiming that
these are only specific adjustments in behaviour, developed by specific conditions of a place
or time. The issue is that observed moral actions may only represent what an individual ‘must
do, given certain circumstances, rather than what they think they should do’ (1982: 1099).
Consequently, what is a moral action,
…can only be adequately understood in terms of people's ideas of what should
be, and what should be will not be understood without knowing what is. Not
to explicate this relation between enacted and cherished morality is naive
empiricism. (Haan, 1982: 1099, emphasis in original).
What is morally right or good might only be understandable in terms of what people believe
should, or should not, be morally right or good. However, this cannot be understood without
knowing what constitutes a moral action. It is important that morality can be conceptualized
with regards to certain actions, but credence must also be given in terms of how this
manifests in the everyday lives of people. It is also important to know why people act in
145
accordance with their perceived moral beliefs to understand how moral views and judgments
are enacted on an everyday basis. Within the present study, participants claimed that ASB is
immoral only in relation to specific examples or types of ASB. There was also
acknowledgment that what is morally good to one person, or context, may not be to another.
This is related to tolerance once more, with varying thresholds or perceptions as to what is
moral or immoral behaviour. Yet, the issue of knowing what constitutes a moral action, and
what one perceives as being a moral action, are both difficult to delineate and may be
influenced by perception, tolerance and context.
In terms of context, recent evidence suggests that the link between morality and crime may in
fact be related to the ‘moral environment’ of when an offense is perpetrated. According to
Wikström (2012) criminal behaviour in so-called hot spots of crime is not only a consequence
of the location and opportunity, but also the moral context in which it occurred. Wikström
refers to the level of enforcement of ‘common rules of conduct’ which, in these contexts,
interact with the presence of ‘crime-prone’ young people. He found that moral contexts can
encourage crime when young people with this personal characteristic are present.
Some examples of this include city and local centre locations with ‘poor collective efficacy’
or moral contexts in which ‘crime prone’ young people are vulnerable to committing crime,
particularly when the young people are involved in unsupervised activities. A key finding
was that policies need to focus on developing moral education and cognitive nurturing –
which assist with the development of greater self-control. Subsequently, this will help
minimise the emergence of moral contexts which are conducive to crime. Further
understanding of the relationship between social disadvantage and how it influences the
content of young people’s moral education is needed. It can be surmised from this
perspective that moral education may have utility as a form of prevention for criminal or anti-
social behaviour within these locations of specific moral context. The idea that certain
contexts are potential factors in the occurrence of crime or ASB was suggested by
participants, often noting deprived areas as more prone. However, from the participants’
perspectives, morality was linked to parental or family influences first, and the environment
second. The New Labour government suggested that the issue may be due to dysfunctional
families who were perceived as ‘morally deficient’ (Parr, 2010). Poor parenting was
identified as another root cause of ASB and this preceded a ‘raft of policy measures and
legislative programmes’ (Parr, 2010: 717). In the current study it was reported by participants
146
that ‘poor parenting’ could precede ASB due to a lack of instilled morals or respect. Thus, a
lack of ‘good’ parenting was perceived to play a role in youth ASB by participants.
In summary, there was a definite perceived link between ASB and immorality in each focus
group, but this was also linked to issues of (in)tolerance. Loud music and noisy neighbours
were identified as sources of both ASB and immorality for some participants, but others
suggested tolerance if this is not a persistent complaint. The categorisation of acts as being
both anti-social and immoral appeared to be associated with the consequences of the said act.
Whilst youths congregating did not appear to really evoke strong concerns and consequences
for the participants, littering and other environmental ASB did. Littering was one of the most
denounced ASBs that was also perceived to be very immoral.
Morality and parenting
As noted, throughout the focus group discussions there was much emphasis on the influence
that family (especially parents) and other role models have on shaping young people’s sense
of morality. In the UK narratives regarding ‘poor parenting’ became prevalent during the
New Labour Government (1997-2010) and grew to dominate public culture (Jensen and
Tyler, 2012). There was a perception that families were the ‘bedrock’ and good parenting the
key method through which to sustain a ‘good society of the future’ (Edwards and Gillies,
2012: 66). The placing of ‘family values’ and morality at the epicentre of behavioural issues
such as ASB was a perception shared by many participants in the current study. For instance,
in Skelmersdale Focus Group 1, the first responses in the discussion of everyday morality
noted how moral development stems from parents:
I think it’s… morality is your beliefs that you might have been taught by your
parents… or raised to think that… so obviously it varies in everybody… so
everybody is different and things like manners… and being polite… and
keeping promises to others, I just think that is what morality means… (P.1,
Skelmersdale Focus Group 1)
Similarly, in Skelmersdale Focus Group 2, emphasis was placed on the way people are
brought up:
147
Doing the right thing… respecting people, the way we were brought up
basically and to respect people and treat people the way you want to be
treated. (P.4, Skelmersdale Focus Group 2)
This feeds into the reciprocal nature of morality previously discussed. Similarly:
… it’s about setting yourself a standard and trying to hopefully live to that
standard and expecting the same of other people isn’t it, it’s about your
upbringing as well you know, your own sense of worth and stuff. (P.6,
Skelmersdale Focus Group 3)
Further support for morality being related to parents and a person’s broader upbringing was
evidenced in St Helens Focus Group 3 where morality was claimed to be more of a ‘learnt
behaviour’ rather than innate:
I think morality is a bit more of a learnt behaviour to be honest… I don’t think
we are all born with a moral compass… because obviously, that wouldn’t
explain why people do horrendous things. I think you’re taught through an
early age… whether it’s through religious beliefs or parents telling you what
you can and can’t do, or why you should or shouldn’t do things… I see it more
of, it is to do with right and wrong, but I think that’s based on what you’ve
learnt or what you’ve seen. (P.3, St Helens Focus Group 3)
The contention that morality is not something we are all born with frames the concept as
something contextually driven, or socially embedded in the environment and society people
live in. The suggestion that we are not born with a ‘moral compass’ and claims that we are
‘taught’ through our ‘beliefs or parents’ infers that a form of moral education in necessary
when parenting. Failure during this process may lead to a lack of knowledge regarding what
one understands as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, perhaps preceding ASB. According to Taboada (1998:
1) the best method to tackle crime and ASB is to ‘embark on an educational process to help
people confront and resolve issues’. From this perspective, Taboada suggests moral education
can provide the context in which crime prevention policy could be based. By teaching social
and cultural values, with acknowledgment of law and respect for human rights, it may be
possible to counteract the friction between competing views of behaviour. This suggestion
148
appears to be reminiscent of promoting ‘tolerance’ amongst people. The need for awareness
and education is posited as a method to tackle ASB at the root, rather than tackling
symptoms.
Taboada (1998) notes that beyond parenting, educational institutions have a responsibility to
promote moral education and awareness to younger generations. This is also echoed by
participants in the current study. However, participants placed more emphasis upon parents
than educational institutes in terms of where moral awareness and education derives from.
For example, participants in Rainford Focus Group 1 discussed further the relationship
between moral education through families and ASB. In a few of these cases, participants
perceived morality to be generational and fostered by the family; and ‘good’ moral
development is no longer as evident in contemporary generations:
… and it’s now a generation, it’s going back three or four generations. Now
this is the problem that we’re dealing with, it’s not just this generation…
because I saw it and you saw, sort of saw, the mums bringing in the teenagers
and their teenagers are bringing in their babies and you’re thinking it’s this
cycle, perpetual cycle that’s going on and it’s quite frightening. (P.5, Rainford
Focus Group 1)
According to participant 5, parents’ own behaviour may be the standard upon which their
children’s morals and behaviour will be developed:
… and it’s also on the child’s background, have the parents behaved that way,
have they passed that on to the children? Grandparents? You know... three
generations, never worked, they knew they’d never work, so erm… they just
think it’s a normal way to behave. (P.1, Rainford Focus Group 1)
Here it is evident that the relationship between parent and child, or grandparent and child, is
very much at the forefront of linking the behaviour and perception. One participant in
Rainford Focus Group 2 claimed that a lack of morality stems from poor transference of
moral values from parents to children:
149
I think ASB links into the way you were brought up, erm… I think if you were
brought up with morals, I don’t think you’d commit ASB on a regular basis or,
well, or at all really… if your morals are right you wouldn’t commit ASB,
you’d be more respectful, people’s property and your environment that you
live in. So I think there is a link between morality and ASB. I think if you’re
brought up and your morals are high, you won’t disrespect the things that ASB
is. Which is a lot of the stuff that we’ve discussed? (P.1, Rainford Focus
Group 2).
This is a simplification, but the perception that ASB links into the ‘the way you were brought
up’ it not an unusual suggestion. As already highlighted, ‘bad parenting’ and ‘problem
families’ are increasingly blamed for ‘social and economic ills’ (Jensen and Tyler, 2012: 3).
More specifically, issues such as a lack of parental investment in fostering morality and
‘good’ morals are suggested to be a potential catalyst for ASB, both in research and present
participant narratives:
Yeah I agree, I think morality is linked to, you know, lack of morality is linked
to ASB erm… if someone said to me about school children, naughty school
children, well it’s not always the children who are the naughty ones it’s how
they’re brought up, how their parents bring them up. It’s… you know, they’re
not just always naughty it’s how they’re taught at home, you know to have
morals, to have respect for people. I think ASB and morality is linked, if
you’re brought up well… I think… there must be some link between deprived
areas as well. But even, you know, years and years ago if you lived in a
deprived area, as long as your parents brought you up well then you had the
right morals and I don’t think ASB was as bad then so… yep I do think it’s
linked and it all comes down to how you respect yourself and others and how
you’re brought up. (P.2, Rainford Focus Group 2)
Within this account there are suggestions once more that families are integral to the moral
development of young individuals, being the primary medium through which the
‘transmission of values’ (Valentine, 2008: 2102) can occur. This transmission of values
entails the passing of social and cultural norms and ideals. The implication here is that not
being ‘brought up’ to have ‘good’ morals and learn right from wrong has the potential for
150
ASB and other less socially acceptable actions to be deemed ‘morally okay’, regardless of
consideration for others.
According to Bull (1969, as cited in Devine, 2006: 15) ‘The child is not born with a built-in
moral conscience. But he is born with those natural, biologically purposive capacities that
make him potentially a moral being’. This statement appears to resonate with participant
claims in this study that if ‘you’re brought up well…’ then you will be more respectful and
abide by taught moral rules. La Sage and De Ruyter (2008) investigated whether parents may
hold any responsibility for the criminal behaviour of their offspring. The argument made was
that, because children lack moral reasoning skills, perspective taking, moral emotional
awareness and behaviour control skills, parents must take responsibility for morally educating
their children. Furthermore, parents need to support prosocial behaviour, provide ‘good’
examples, and reject anti-social behaviour whilst also being consistent. This is particularly
pertinent in terms of the current findings, the evidence suggesting that promoting prosocial
‘good’ behaviours and consistent education are important factors in reducing the likelihood of
ASB. Additionally, according to some of the participants, parents must also provide a
framework of discipline and explain moral rules and values - parents are to provide moral
education first and foremost. However, despite such claims, it is important to note that La
Sage and De Ruyter (2008) also stated that moral education will necessarily prevent criminal
(and anti-social) behaviour later in life.
Kohlberg’s (1975) theory of moral development may be useful here, which suggests that:
… rather than attempt to indoctrinate or socialize students, moral education
should seek to stimulate the natural process of development toward more
mature reasoning. Hence the role of the educator ought to be that of a
supportive but questioning guide - a Socratic teacher - who encourages the
articulation and examination of students’ own reasoning about ethical issues
and facilitates exposure to higher stages of reasoning, (Munsey, 1980: 360).
Schemrich (2003) noted that Kohlberg’s (1975) core concept is that both adolescents and
children construct their own morals and values through moral conflict. Rather than just
internalize the morals and values of role models - such as parents and teachers - they develop
increased levels of moral reasoning through this conflict. The key objective of moral
151
education is to stimulate and increase the child’s ability to reason at ‘a higher level of moral
maturity’ (Schemrich, 2003: 8) that promotes thinking and awareness of others’ rights or
needs. Kohlberg more broadly claimed that the development of a moral society is dependent
upon the moral standards of the individuals that coexist within that specific society.
Interestingly, the notion that a more moral society would lead to less ASB and criminality
was suggested by participants in the current investigation.
Summary
In summary, it is evident that participants in each location in the study perceived a
relationship between morality and parenting. Some placed emphasis on parents and role
models as the cornerstone of where people first develop their sense, or lack, of morality. For
others, religious beliefs were of more importance to their sense of where morality originates;
but even within these accounts there was recognition of the role performed by parents in
forming the moral perceptions of younger people. One participant took a different
perspective, noting that morality comes from culture, society and peers. Yet, once again there
was the recognition that parents are embroiled within this process too. Finally, participants
linked ASB and a lack of morality to absent parental investment in teaching ‘good’ morals to
young individuals. A lack of fostering prosocial values and morals was perceived to be one
cause for the presence of ASB. Interestingly, this was not unique to ‘deprived areas’.
Perceptions of everyday morality and ASB were linked through multiple discussions of topics
including: perceived causes of ASB; disrespect; youthful ASB; issues of understanding ASB
and impacts; what defines ASB; moral explanations; whether ASB is more individual or
contextual; the reciprocal nature of everyday morality; ASB and immorality; ASB,
intolerance and immorality; ASB and consequences; and parenting and morality.
Participant perceptions of ASB were found to focus on the impacts of ASB on others. What
ASB was perceived to be was commonly referred to by actions that have adverse
consequences. Tolerance, perception and behavioural expectations within different contexts
were factors that influenced perceptions of what ASB is. Why certain behaviours were
perceived to be anti-social or immoral was reported to be influenced by variables including
the consequences on others and the age profile of the anti-social individuals - i.e. youths
congregating or being noisy.
152
Common perceptions of ASB causes included narratives discussing parental neglect,
deprivation and social inequalities. The influence of peers and disrespect were frequently
discussed by participants as influencing the likelihood of ASB. Individual variables were
noted by some participants who noted that mental health or individuals who need a sense of
belonging to a group. The desire to identify with others and have a sense of belonging to a
group was a common perception in the analysis.
Atypical examples of ASB that were perceived to be immoral included behaviours that had
negative consequences for others. For example, smoking on a train or bus was perceived to
be anti-social and morally wrong, particularly if there were children present. Another atypical
example included behaviours that were perceived as criminal but also anti-social and
immoral; namely the MPs expenses scandal and tax evasion by large businesses.
Interestingly, perceptions of atypical ASB were present in each focus group location,
irrespective of the level of deprivation.
A key finding of this study included participants adopting a consequentialist view of
morality. Perceptions of what everyday morality is and how it may be linked to ASB were
frequently discussed with reference to the outcomes of actions. Perceptions of why some
ASBs may be perceived as immoral, such as littering, were commonly associated with
negative consequences for the environment and safety of others. Interestingly, participant
narratives of what everyday morality is was discussed from mixed perspectives. The Golden
Rule and morality as reciprocal were common findings in the study. Being virtuous and
treating others how you want to be treated were participant responses to conceptualising
everyday morality. Finally, ASB and everyday morality were perceived as being linked
through concepts such as a lack of respect, immorality, behavioural expectations in different
contexts, a lack of moral education and poor parenting.
Next, the conclusion chapter summarises key findings and discusses everyday morality and
ASB by drawing on criminological and philosophical perspectives. It considers the
limitations of the study and how the current findings might contribute to knowledge of ASB
and everyday morality. Suggestions for further research are outlined.
153
Chapter 6.
Conclusions
Introduction
The aim of the present investigation was to examine perceptions of ASB and everyday
morality based upon two key research questions. The first was, through drawing on
criminological and philosophical literature, how are ASB and everyday morality linked, if at
all, and what evidence is there for this link. The second question was how do the public
perceive everyday morality and anti-social behaviour as being related? The aim was to
answer these questions through two key approaches. The first method was to conduct a
literature review of existing criminological and philosophical literatures to develop a broader
picture of the relationship between ASB and everyday morality. The second plan was to
conduct an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of perceptions of ASB and
everyday morality using in-depth focus group discussions based upon three locations in the
North West of England. The findings suggested that there are various diverse and convergent
public perceptions regarding ASB, everyday morality, and the relationship between these.
The themes were interrelated, and some overlapped but all were evident within each of the
three focus group locations chosen.
In this concluding chapter perceptions of ASB are considered as relating to assumed causes
and consequences and everyday morality. Following this, the importance of individual
context of ASB is considered, including issues of social deprivation. The chapter then reflects
on the key themes of subjectivity and tolerance, ASB and morality, and the relevance of
Kantian ethics. The limitations, contributions to knowledge and future research implications
are further considered. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how these may have
implications for future research from an interdisciplinary perspective.
154
Perceptions of ASB
The findings were organised into key themes, the first of which was people’s perceptions of
what constitutes ASB. It was revealed that prevalent perceptions of ASB focused on the
everyday nuisance and disruptive behaviour most often associated with young people. A
common finding was that participants have either experienced, been witness to, or heard of
others who had been affected by ASB. Narratives from each area focused on the negative
consequences that ASB has on society and individuals. However, in line with previous
research (e.g. Mackenzie et al., 2010), perception itself was identified as being important in
determining what is deemed to be anti-social. Frequently the focus groups mentioned young
people when asked what ASB meant to them. This perception was linked to views that socio-
economic deprivation and poor parenting are factors that can precipitate young people
engaging in ASB. Further, being young was perceived to be related to ASB definitions, and
as a perceived cause of ASB.
Participant narratives identified various perceived antecedents of ASB such as age, peer
relationships, boredom or a lack of purpose. More contextual causes were also discussed,
with participants claiming that social deprivation and background can play roles in the onset
of ASB. Participants also emphasised a lack of respect, potentially associated with poor
parenting. Conversely the transmission of strong values - such as respect - was important in
explaining causes for ASB.
Participants often adopted a consequentialist view of ASB (and of everyday morality),
focusing on the negative consequences of behaviour. Often these centred on the participants’
own experiences of ASB and how it negatively affected themselves or others they knew.
These consequences tended to be either physical or mental health impacts of vandalism of
property or verbal insults and offensive behaviour. Despite difficulties in defining ASB,
according to the participants the impact of a given behaviour on others was a key feature of
what makes something (or someone) anti-social. In the focus groups ASB was always
discussed in relation to the negative consequences it can have on the lives of others.
155
Perceptions of ASB: Everyday morality
According to the focus group participants a perceived lack of morality was causally linked to
ASB, and in particular to not fostering ‘good’ morals and values. Interestingly, this
discussion developed into describing more atypical behaviours that would not often be
perceived as ASB but were viewed as anti-social and immoral. For example, whether it was
tax avoidance by companies, or tax evasion by individuals, participants noted that
deliberately avoiding paying taxes is both immoral and anti-social. This challenges the
assumption that ASB is a poor person’s problem, where perpetrators are often from deprived
areas. Further atypical examples of behaviour perceived as immoral and anti-social were
mentioned, such as smoking in enclosed places or online social media bullying.
Participant narratives suggested that there was a link between perception of ASB and
everyday morality through perceived immorality and intolerance. It is interesting to note that
what was perceived as both, or either, immoral and anti-social was not consistently agreed
upon within all focus groups. Some behaviours did have a larger consensus, including claims
that littering or fly-tipping were very immoral in addition to being anti-social. However,
youths congregating was perceived by some as being ASB and not by others who thought it
was context dependent. It was less identified by participants as being immoral.
Further findings revealed that participants placed great emphasis on a person’s upbringing,
the role of parents in determining the morals and values of their children. Parents were
framed as role models and the very cornerstone of where people develop either their sense, or
lack of, morality. However, some participants perceived religion to be where their source of
morality comes from, whilst some claimed that culture and peers are influential variables that
determine one’s sense of morality.
Public perceptions both supported and questioned the role that everyday morality may have
in ASB. However, the focus group discussions that supported the idea of a link between ASB
and morality perceived the relationship as one of cognition and behaviour. It was often
suggested that morality was involved in that premeditative stage before an individual
behaves, hinting that morality was thought to have the potential to inhibit behaviour that may
be anti-social. The subjectivity of what it means to be moral or immoral pervaded participant
discussions of a link between everyday morality and ASB. Perceptions suggested that if this
changed from one person to the next, then such a link would be so heterogeneous it may not
156
be relevant. That said, it was evident that some felt there is a blurring of boundaries when
categorising behaviours based upon their moral standing and ASB criteria.
How individual context and perception related to ASB
A key finding of the present study was that context and perception are not only important
factors in legislation on ASB, but also for everyday understandings of ASB. For example,
some participants reported that areas simply associated with being deprived or with a bad
reputation may be labelled so, simply through negative stereotyping. As discussed in Chapter
1, this could be influenced through residents’ perceptions that the young have a higher
propensity to commit ASB. For example, one participant noted that normally ASB is just
‘kids’ and referred to a lack of parenting skills in addition to deprivation. ASB research and
policy have been biased towards areas perceived to be troublesome, marginalised and
criminalised (Sadler, 2008). This is despite not all disadvantaged communities experiencing
ASB problems to the same level (Flint et al., 2007). Furthermore, as noted, when ASB was
discussed it was not limited to the most deprived and young, but also to other members of
society.
It was suggested that whilst age and deprivation can play a role in the potential for ASB to
occur, individual factors such as attention-seeking behaviour, a desire to be liked or values
instilled by parents are also perceived to be important. Wider cultural and, religious factors
were also thought to be important with moral codes differing from one society or culture to
another.
ASB was often described by participants as a common characteristic of some families.
According to Curtis (2016) a general milieu lacking in positive experiences is associated with
anti-social behaviour, and this may be on the part of the young person, parents or the whole
family (often developing into a reciprocal pattern).
Social deprivation and ASB
As noted, the perception that ASB is related to socio-economic status and deprivation was a
recurring theme in the present study. For instance, one participant in Rainford noted that ASB
was related to ‘a cycle of deprivation’, subsequently claiming links to structural issues such
as low-opportunities, high levels of unemployment and living in areas where other people
157
have ‘never had jobs’ due to deprivation. Criminological research into ASB has frequently
discussed the relationship between deprivation, social exclusion and ASB (Millie et al., 2005;
Flatley et al., 2008; Burney 2009; Crawford, 2009; Millie, 2009; Taylor et al., 2015 Young,
2016). For instance, Heap (2014) reported ASB perceptions in ‘hard-pressed’ areas are
primarily driven by experience: ‘ASB, be it against neighbours, environmental damage or
through personal experience was the key driver of perceptions in these hard-pressed areas.’
(Heap, 2010: 48). She further noted that in many cases perceptions were influenced by a
combination of the above factors, alongside ‘word of mouth’ and the experiences of others. In
the current study, one participant in Rainford explicitly stated how ASB changes between
locations. In this participant’s village littering and cigarette stubs were the main examples of
ASB. However, in another town (St Helens) the participant expressed how the ASB was of a
more ‘serious’ nature, namely how people treat one another, street drinking, verbal abuse or
swearing, a lack of respect and regard for one another.
To summarise, common perceptions were that areas of deprivation or social housing are
typical locations for the occurrence of ASB. However, some participants reflected the
stereotypical notion that ‘being young’ was a factor in the likelihood of behaving anti-
socially. Egan et al. (2012) noted that being either underprivileged or disadvantaged may
precede an individual being negatively stereotyped and that living in or being associated with
a location deemed to be poor can increase concerns about anti-social or criminal behaviour.
An interesting point to note was that perceptions of deprivation were also linked to ideas of
everyday morality and ASB. One participant claimed that one of the influential factors for
how you behave, in both moral and anti-social terms, was where you live. Namely, whether
you were from a ‘socially deprived background’ or ‘affluent’ location was perceived to be
influential in how you behave. This provides a potential avenue for investigation in future
research. The notion that one’s background influences their likelihood of ASB but also their
sense of morality may unveil further links in the relationship between ASB and everyday
morality, although other participants believed that ASB and immorality could occur
anywhere.
158
ASB, subjectivity and tolerance
What one person deems to be anti-social may be considered acceptable by others. Thus, some
people may tolerate certain forms of minor ASB, whereas others may not, leading to further
discrepancies in what is, and what is not reported. Such subjectivity allows ASB to be
governed by factors such as context, location, community tolerance and quality of life
expectations (ODPM, 2003). A broad, subjective definition can however be a positive device.
It embraces all victims of ASB, as their experience of the behaviour and the consequences it
has upon their quality of life are taken into account. From a victim’s perspective ‘the use of
such a permeable, all-encompassing definition is justified in terms of the need to protect the
self-governing, law-abiding citizen from the dangerous, uncivilised ‘other’’ (Flint and Nixon,
2006:943). Such a wide-ranging definition can simultaneously produce negative outcomes. It
‘is open to objection on the basis that it will catch conduct which is unorthodox or unusual,
eccentric or bizarre, but which, nevertheless is conduct which ought not to be the subject of
the legal process’ (Card and Ward, 1998:108). Therefore, the definition of ASB has the
potential to affect so-called ‘law-abiding’ citizens whose behaviour may be unconventional in
a particular context, rather than anti-social.
As noted, ASB can be influenced by factors such as our own level of tolerance and
behavioural expectations within differing contexts. This was a recurring theme of the data in
this thesis. Tolerance of some behaviour was directly related to the assumed consequences of
that behaviour. Tolerance and subjectivity levels also appeared to vary between
neighbourhoods.
ASB and morality
The current study was informed by research and concepts from both criminology and
philosophy. In addition, IPA, typically a psychological research methodology, was adapted to
analyse participant narratives. Millie (2016) has advocated such a multidisciplinary approach
when developing a broader academic perspective in criminology and philosophy. For
instance, according to Millie, ‘It became clear that there is a great deal that criminology can
learn from closer engagement with philosophy’. (2016: 123). More specifically, the current
study aimed to extrapolate deeper meaning and engagement with morality which has been of
interest to both academic disciplines. For example, morality itself has been linked to those
159
behaviours that enable individuals to navigate their everyday social worlds and influence
behaviours. According to Bottoms (2002: 24), ‘if they are true to their calling, all
criminologists have to be interested in morality’. Similarly, Millie (2016) has stated:
Moral philosophy, or ethics, is concerned with how we live and how we ought
to live with one another. It considers what is good or bad, as well as deontic
judgements of rightness, wrongness, obligation, requirement, reason for doing
and what ought to be (Millie, 2016: 33, emphasis in original).
According to Millie, these concerns are of paramount importance to criminology. Others have
resonated this, including Williams and Arrigo who claimed:
Historically, philosophers have written very little about the subject of crime.
Similarly, criminologists have written very little about the subject of
philosophy. In both cases, the linkages between philosophy and crime have
been left implicit … However; to be sure, law and justice have been
particularly significant concerns throughout the history of philosophy.
(Williams and Arrigo, 2006: 1)
Arrigo and Williams (2006) contend that our understanding of, or knowledge about crime,
law, and justice are given expressive form (become realities) when constructed within
linguistic systems (e.g., the language of the law or legalese). The meaning of these narratives
is derived from how we convey our thoughts; as communicated from the language system
and/or structures we employ. They claim the knowledge we have ‘concerning these realities
is textured by what we say and by how we say it, knowledge about crime, law, and justice is
linked to the power language wields over us’ (Williams and Arrigo, 2006: 14). Milovanovic
(1997) claims that language is powerful as it is the vehicle through which legislation is
framed. According to Millie (2016) the most powerful in society dictate what behaviour
should be censured, based upon their own values and perceptions, through laws. In this study,
participants noted that some powerful members of society, for example members of
parliament, should be setting the example. Yet, some participants perceived their behaviour
as immoral and anti-social on occasion, as example being the MPs’ expenses scandal.
Another example given was tax evasion – which was perceived as immoral and anti-social by
160
some, but not all, participants. Public perceptions of this behaviour were not in tandem with
the views of those who abuse their position of power.
The notion that ASB may be prevalent in social groups other than the more deprived or
disadvantaged has received little attention in the literature. In the current study, tax evasion or
the example of MPs’ expenses, were perceived as being both anti-social and immoral in the
same way as vandalism or littering, as occurring because of a lack of morality and respect.
Morality was described and discussed in similar terms by most focus group participants, with
slight variation in beliefs regarding where we develop our sense of morality from. Future
studies could focus on individuals who may have previously partaken in ASB to see whether
moral values had any impact upon their decision-making and behaviour, and whether the
consequences of this behaviour have any moral ramifications for the perpetrator or not. In the
current study it was the consequences of the behaviour that seemed to influence how ‘moral’
or ‘immoral’ participants perceived the ASB to be.
The evidence here suggested that participants in each of the three locations of this study,
despite levels of deprivation, believed that some ASB was immoral and some ASB was not
immoral. Some participants did not link ASB to morality at all, instead finding this dependent
upon the context of the ASB. For example, benefit fraud was often regarded as immoral and
anti-social, due to it being regarded as ‘stealing’ money from taxpayers; but some appeared to
mitigate the severity of this moral transgression. Instead, benefit fraud was attributed to
circumstances outside of their control, with some people just trying to survive. An
examination of the variations in different social groups, for example ‘typical’ ASB
perpetrators, tax evaders, or Members of Parliament, could reveal how concepts of everyday
morality and ASB are different, if at all. In turn, this could help inform public perceptions of
an assumed moral decline, and assumed increases in ASB in society.
The Golden Rule, Kantian ethics and ASB
Throughout the study morality was commonly expressed through the Golden Rule. In
Chapters two and four of the thesis, the Golden Rule was highlighted as a potentially useful
way of understanding morality – that you ‘do to others what you would have them do to you’
(Matthew 7:12). More specifically, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is useful for understanding
161
why certain actions or omissions ought to be regarded as morally wrong and censurable.
Participants discussed the impacts of ASB on victims, often referencing the Golden Rule as a
sort of criterion on which they could deem an act anti-social or immoral. The implication was
that participants perceived everyday morality to be based on a reciprocal relationship -
treating others as you want to be treated, and being respectful to others, were both described
as features of everyday morality.
Millie (2016) emphasised Kant’s focus on the requirement to respect the self and respect
other people. It was evident in the current findings that respecting others and conducting
yourself with respect for others were important to participants’ concepts of everyday morality
and perceptions of ASB - where perceived causes of ASB were linked to an assumed lack of
respect for others and conducting oneself in a manner that causes nuisance to others.
Similar to the Kantian perspective, participants referred to morality from a duty- or rules-
based perspective; namely that individuals should behave in accordance with moral rules and
codes of conduct. For example, participants often noted that respect should be both given and
received to others. However, whilst Kantian ethics is usually seen as non-consequentialist,
the perceived ‘wrongness’ of the ASB was often described by participants with reference to
the consequences for others. For example, some participants claimed that ASB includes
actions that are ‘against the norms and values of society’ and precede ‘something that harms
the social well-being of others’. Thus, perceptions of what ASB is, were influenced by both
deontological (rule-based) and consequentialist perspectives.
ASB was linked to perceptions, where one individual’s behavioural expectations in a certain
context may differ to another individual in that same context. For example, a group of youths
congregating in a street can be considered ASB. One may perceive this as ASB, and it is
liable for intervention according to Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014.
However, another may perceive this behaviour as harmless, and not ASB. Similarly, people
may perceive a group of youths congregating in a location, for example a park, consuming
alcohol and may view it as immoral. Who decides that these activities are ASB is the
legislature as influenced by those with power. However, whether it is immoral (and anti-
social) is a matter of individual perception - despite previously noted governmental efforts to
tackle ASB and immorality through enforcing respect (Respect Task Force, 2006). The point
to take here was that individual perceptions of whether one type of behaviour was either anti-
162
social, immoral, or both differed. This is pertinent to reports that law should not enforce
morality, as what is perceived as immoral may differ from one community to another (Green,
2013). As Green (2013: 473) has stated: ‘Lawyers and philosophers have long debated
whether law should enforce social morality’. Yet, according to Devlin (cited in Green, 2013:
473):
… on the contrary, provided what is at issue is a moral standard whose breach
an average person would regard with intolerance, indignation, and disgust, we
should enforce it.
The key here is what an ‘average person’ would think. What this study has shown is that an
average person might not be so easily identified. Similarly, taking a utilitarian perspective,
Hart claimed that we should never enforce morality, ‘unless doing so attains some good that
outweighs the loss of liberty and happiness that come with enforcement.’ (Hart, as cited in
Green, 2013: 473). How law should reflect morality remains unsettled, and Green (2013:
474) gives an example of this problem during a court case:
In the law of obscenity, for example, courts can in one breath disown
moralistic interpretations of what is obscene, declaring that it is to be defined
not by violations of community standards but instead by reference to
harmfulness, but then in the next breath affirm that what counts as ‘harm’ is
whatever the community regards as harmful. (Green, 2013: 474).
A similar issue is the subjectivity of ASB and its relation to everyday morality, and whose
perceptions determine what behaviours are anti-social and what behaviours are not.
Perceptions of everyday morality and ASB
Perceptions of morality are not only contested, but also change; as described by Green:
Moral views that were once an unremarkable part of our own cultures and then
became minority, even pariah, outlooks, are being given new life. It was not so
long ago that our societies held it morally unproblematic that men should be
entitled to control women’s lives; that family honour should trump individual
163
well-being; that children are vassals of their parents; and that law should
support the true religion. Our current moral consensus against such attitudes is
destabilized by the mobility and migration of peoples who take a different
view. (Green, 2013: 474).
ASB and everyday morality are similarly impacted by subjectivity and changes of
perceptions through time.
The thesis can conclude that perceptions of everyday morality and ASB are linked. However,
variation in participants’ opinions regarding the moral aspects of ASB presented similar
difficulties in attempting to clearly delineate both how and when ASB may be perceived as
immoral. If perceptions are context-dependent, or based upon the perceptions of powerful
social elites, then legislation aimed at tackling ASB may be at fault itself for promoting a lack
of tolerance and respect for others. The behaviour of those with power may not be perceived
as immoral and anti-social, based upon their own views of morality, yet others may take a
different view. In fact, perceptions in this study were quite aligned when it came to certain
groups being immoral and anti-social, such as tax evading companies or the MPs’ expenses
scandal.
Current climate of ASB
The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced new ASB policing tools
that replaced the previous nineteen orders of previous legislation (Eastwood, 2016,
Johnstone, 2016). The six new orders to tackle ASB included; Criminal Behaviour Orders,
Crime Prevention Injunctions, police directions powers and three categories of Community
Protection Orders (Eastwood, 2015). The three subcategories of Community Protection
Orders include; the Community Protections notice, the Community Protection Order (public
spaces) and Community Protection Order (closure). It has been argued that these new powers
simply continue to undermine the rights of citizens and enhance the government’s power over
the vulnerable and marginalised (Eastwood, 2015). These orders replaced the previous
number of powers and provide measures to counteract ASB that may not have fallen within
the rubric of previous legislative tools. For example, the new powers provide scope to cover a
broad range of behaviours than previous legislation and they require a lower burden of proof
(Eastwood, 2016; Johnstone, 2016). These orders replaced the previous number of powers
164
and provide measures to counteract ASB that may not have fallen within the rubric of
previous legislative tools.
For Eastwood (2016) the reform of old ASB legislation has precipitated a simpler system that
had increased the reach of ASB powers. This could leave individuals at risk of being
punished for behaviours that could be addressed through a more supportive approach.
Instead, similar to the preceding ASB legislation, the marginalised and vulnerable members
of society are still at risk of further punitive methods that do not address underpinning causes
(Eastwood, 2016). Some have criticised the post-2014 approach to ASB as conveying the
same extant measures that will continue to impact upon the vulnerable groups within society
(Johnstone, 2016). For example, the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) were being
implemented against both young people and the homeless (Liberty, 2015). The dispersal of
vulnerable groups including the poor or homeless from areas they are not wanted underpins
the ‘eliminative ideal’ (Johnstone, 2016). Contemporary government approaches to appear to
still be directed at excluding the marginalised from public spaces and the trend of elimination
and exclusion has very much been strengthened by the recent ASB legislation. In fact, the
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) has bolstered and extended existing
measure that were ‘already enjoyed by the police, courts, municipal authorities and social
housing providers’ (Johnstone, 2016: 723). However, it has been stated that the ASBO’s part
in facilitating young people into the criminal justice system has been diminished by the
replacement of ASBO’s through the Injunction (Johnstone, 2016) as breaching orders is now
not a criminal offence. Since 2014, the debate around ASB control appears to have fallen by
the wayside and ‘debate is much more muted’ (Johnstone, 2016: 724).
In recent years the ASB debate appears to have shifted in political discourse from a focus on
ASB perpetrators to ASB victims and families (Heap, 2014). The Home Office’s ASB victim
policies were identified as a response aimed at addressing the needs of vulnerable people and
repeat victims (Heap, 2014). Then Home Secretary Theresa May claimed that ASB was
‘destroyed good people’s lives’ (May, 2010) conveying the coalition government’s attempts
to gain support to reform ASB policy. The aim was to create ASB policy where the victims’
needs are being met and prioritised (Heap, 2014). However, the reality was that the methods
introduced by the 2014 legislation, including changes to police call management, the
Community Trigger, focusing on victims and improved communication channels were
criticised for not truly putting victims first. Contrarily, it had been claimed that the
165
developments introduced to prioritise victims’ needs were flawed and poorly constructed
(Heap, 2014). Whilst the debate around ASB as a prominent issue appears to have abated, it
is evident that there are still similar issues around current measures to counteract ASB
(Eastwood, 2016; Johnstone, 2016) and attempts to support the victim (Heap, 2014).
Limitations
The current study has its limitations being based on the views of focus group participants
from one area of the North West of England. The focus groups also had an open structure
meaning there were themes identified in Skelmersdale Focus Group 3, that were not
discussed in Rainford, Focus Group 1. The lack of complete generalizability between the
three areas meant that some of the lived experiences of participants, regarding their
perceptions of ASB and morality, could not be explored. In addition, many variables can
influence the direction discussions take, making further generalisations difficult, even
between groups within the same study. For example, Sim (1998) suggests that factors such as
group dynamics, group composition and group situation can all influence what participants
say during different discussions. Despite this, it is testament to the strength of this study’s
approach - utilizing IPA with focus groups across three locales - that similar themes and
findings from the analysis could be extrapolated from the data, thus revealing links between
participant narratives sharing similar perceptions of ASB and morality. Future studies could
examine whether such claims could help shed light on further antecedents of ASB or
potential methods to intervene early and inform initiatives to counteract ASB.
A further concern of the present study was the issue of whether the study truly measured
public perceptions of ASB. Previous evidence suggests that the definitional issues of ASB
extend to attempts at investigating ASB perceptions. Heap (2010) once asked a pertinent
question regarding studying perceptions of ASB:
… can we be sure that when investigating public perceptions of ASB, we are
investigating the perceptions of ASB alone and not the fear of crime, and/or
the marginalisation of young people as well? Based on the findings from this
study, the answer is likely to be no. (Heap, 2010: 205).
166
In the current study there was no means through which to delineate between whether
participant responses were based on the fear of ASB rather than perceptions alone. This could
have been an important variable as one of the thesis’ findings revealed that public perceptions
of ASB were influenced by multifarious factors such as respect, morality, socio-economic
status, and social housing status, amongst others. Whilst the participants were aware that the
study was exploring their perceptions of ASB, there was not a measure to control for whether
these perceptions were driven by fear or the marginalisation of behaviours, or young people.
Public perceptions of defining ASB were both comparable and contrasting, perhaps reflecting
the individual or local nuances between each focus group location. However, this may also
have reflected individual experiences or characteristics. Despite this, the current study was
relatively enterprising in attempting to explore public perceptions of ASB in relation to
everyday morality. The exploratory nature of this qualitative approach was not focused on
strictly measuring public perceptions of ASB; instead the key aim was to gauge how
perceptions of ASB may relate to everyday morality. Therefore, reporting different
perceptions of ASB and everyday morality that varied between individual participants and
focus group locations can be perceived as a strength.
There was no specific age range, background or other factors that were criteria for inclusion
in the study. This may have hindered the identification of specific aspects of the participants’
characteristics that may influence their perceptions of ASB and everyday morality. For the
current study, however, this approach strengthened the investigation as the various
heterogeneous factors helped enrich the depth and scope of data collected.
A common criticism of the IPA approach is that samples are smaller, although this enables an
in-depth analysis that gives full appreciation of each participant’s experiences. Whilst
generalisation is not the aim of IPA studies, evidence has suggested that, ‘through a steady
accumulation of similar studies on other groups, generalisations may become possible over
time’ (Smith, Harre and Van Langenhove, 1995, as cited in Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2012:
365). A strength of the current study is that similar, shared perceptions were found within
each location. Future investigations that build on these findings could investigate in more
depth whether moral views on various types of ASB are shared across particular locations or
social groups.
167
Contributions to knowledge
The focus groups that were conducted as part of this study provided an in-depth analysis of
public perceptions of ASB in three different locations across the North West of England. This
provided the opportunity to confirm existing drivers of perceptions of ASB, as well as
uncover new factors. This process uncovered barriers to effective practice - for example the
reporting of ASB from the public. The current study is also the first time specific enquires
had been made into the way public perceptions were influenced by factors such as everyday
interpretations of morality and immorality, extending the existing body of knowledge, which
typically focuses on ASB as mainly a criminogenic concern rather than related to perceptions
of morality.
Overall this study produced some specific contributions to knowledge. Some of these
contributions involved new findings, while others challenged existing research. The key
contributions were:
Unconventional perceptions of ASB were reported, such as: the 2009 MPs’ expenses
scandal and tax evasion. These findings challenge the traditional types of ASB
reported by previous studies and suggest that perceptions of ASB evolve and are
dynamic. It is suggested that perceptions of ASB and the motivation for not reporting
differ between geographical areas. An important point here is that this challenges the
assumption that ASB is a poor person’s problem.
Some of the findings challenge existing research. For instance, in this study noisy
neighbours were not consistently considered to be a problem, despite their inclusion
in combined perceptions measures. Not all participants believed each vignette
scenario was a behavioural issue, for example some participants did not believe
youths ‘hanging about’ was ASB or immoral.
Drawing on criminological and philosophical perspectives provided the research with
a framework to study the moral features of perceptions of ASB. What categories of
behaviours are perceived as moral or immoral are often not discussed in relation to
ASB, despite the word ‘morality’ being consistently cited in political discourse and
168
government publications regarding ASB. The present study found that public
perceptions of ASB were related to perceptions of everyday morality, yet some
participants perceived littering as immoral but others not. The current study provides
a foundation for future research to explore both what anti-social behaviours are
perceived as moral or immoral, but also why this may be.
Based on the findings produced by this study, it was evident that perceptions of ASB are
multifaceted. It was apparent that experiential factors were important for people in
determining how they perceived ASB. For example, participants’ perceptions of ASB were
typically affected by their own lived experiences, or experiences of others who described this
to them. Furthermore, this was also influenced by other factors such as tolerance, context,
individualism and the consequences of ASB. In addition, the dynamic nature of perceptions
made it difficult to determine which factors were impacting on perceptions at any moment
throughout the study. This presented an issue that was noted by Heap (2014: 234) who stated:
Therefore, can we really rely upon public perceptions as a proxy measure of
the extent of ASB? Probably not, although it could provide a useful indication
of ASB if used in conjunction with other measures, such as demand statistics
and police recorded incidents.
Thus, the current findings on ASB may not be a reliable measure against which to determine
the extent of ASB, but they do tell us something about perception. As also noted by Heap
(2014), there are outlying questions about ASB perceptions that would benefit from further
research and clarification. It would be beneficial if future research on perceptions of ASB and
morality considers the internal processes and dispositions of people who are everyday victims
and perpetrators of ASB (Cate, 2016).
In the current study, parenting was perceived to be important for the regulation of behaviour,
namely the behaviour of young teenagers or adults. The notion that parents are to blame for
ASB is not new (Peters, 2012). Peters (2012) reported that multiple legislative tools that have
employed ‘parent-blaming’ - or ‘mother-blaming’ - have been adopted to tackle ASB. For
example, previously Fixed Penalty Notices could be issued to parents of young offenders.
Similarly, Flint and Nixon (2006) have reported that parental responsibility has been
169
scrutinised and that parents could be judged based on their child’s behaviour. Farrington and
Welsh (2008) reaffirmed this, claiming that the link between perceived inadequate parenting
and later criminal behaviour had become established in research. However, the current study
was not able to clarify why poor parenting was given such weight by participants. Millie et
al.’s (2005a) work on ASB reported that poor parenting is subjective.
Future research directions
Perceptions of ASB still remain a highly under-researched area (see Mackenzie et al., 2010;
Heap, 2014). The current study has explored some of the drivers behind public perceptions of
ASB as related to ideas of everyday morality, but further investigation in the following
suggestions may benefit policy aimed at addressing said perceptions; for example:
Whether perceptions of ASB are influenced by other factors such as personal
characteristics
If current measures of public perceptions are truly reflective of ASB
The factors that influence the perceived high levels of ASB of residents who live in
areas with a relatively low number of ASB incidents
The extent of the link between public expectations and public perceptions of ASB
An evaluation of the interventions used to reduce perceptions of high ASB
An in-depth investigation into the effect the media has upon public perceptions of
ASB
In a more general context, further research could consider the influence of local level context
on ASB interventions, with the prospect of investigating whether this has an impact upon
public perceptions of ASB. Future research could also investigate the (moral) characteristics
of perpetrators of ASB. In addition, further investigations of ASB and everyday morality
using ward level data may be useful. For example, littering was often perceived to be
immoral in the Rainford focus groups in the present study. Yet in Skelmersdale some
participants did not perceive littering to be immoral, even though they did not agree with it.
By isolating ward level data, it may be possible to investigate if higher incidences of littering
in Skelmersdale, or Rainford, are related to people’s understanding of moral values. Whilst
there is scope for future investigations, this research has provided one account of how public
170
perceptions on ASB may be influenced by a multitude of factors, but in particular by
perceptions of everyday morality. The findings from this study highlight an under-researched
topic.
171
References
Altheide, D. (2009). Moral Panic: From Sociological Concept to Public Discourse.
Crime, Media and Culture: An International Journal, 5(1), 79-99.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., Text Revision). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Antonaccio, O., & Tittle, C. R. (2008). Morality, self‐control, and crime. Criminology, 46(2),
479-510.
Armstrong, G., & Wilson, M. (1973). City politics and deviancy amplification Politics and
Deviance. London: Penguin.
Bannister, J., Fyfe, N., & Kearns, A. (2006). Respectable or respectful? (In) civility and the
city. Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 919-937.
Bannister, J., & Kearns, A. (2013). Overcoming intolerance to young people’s conduct:
Implications from the unintended consequences of policy in the UK. Criminology and
Criminal Justice, 13(4), 380-397.
Bannister, J., & O’Sullivan, A. (2013). Civility, community cohesion and antisocial
behaviour: Policy and social harmony. Journal of Social Policy, 42(1), 91-110.
172
Bartels, Daniel M., Christopher W. Bauman, Fiery A. Cushman, David A. Pizarro, and A.
Peter McGraw (2015). ‘Moral Judgment and Decision Making’. In G. Keren & G. Wu
(Eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 1-36).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bearfield, D., 2008. The demonization of patronage: Folk Devils, Moral Panics and the
Boston Globe’s Coverage of the Terrorist Attacks of 9-11. International Journal of
Public Administration, 31 (5), 515–534.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). A defense of the common morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics
Journal, 13(3), 259-274.
Becker, H. (1967). Whose Side Are We On? Social Problems,14(3), 239-247.
Berry, G. (2003). Young People and Anti-Social Behaviour. Criminal Justice Matters, 54(1),
12-12.
Blair, T. (2005). Speech outside 10 Downing Street, 6 May, London.
Bottoms, A. (2015). Christianity and Crime, Sermon at Trinity College Cambridge, 26 April,
available at: http://trinitycollegechapel.com/media/filestore/sermons/2015-4-26-
AnthonyBottoms.pdf.
Boyd, R. (2006). The value of civility?. Urban Studies, 43(5-6), 863–78.
173
Bramley, N. and Eatough, V. (2005). An idiographic case study of the experience of living
with Parkinson’s disease using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Psychology
and Health, 20(2), 223–235.
Bremner, P., Duffy, B., Wake, R., Burrows, T. (2008). Closing the gaps - crime and public
perceptions. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 22(1), 17-44.
Brown, A. P. (2004). Anti‐social behaviour, crime control and social control. The Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 203-211.
Brown, K. (2012). Re-moralising ‘vulnerability’. People, Place and Policy Online, 6(1), 41-
53.
Brown, K. J. (2013). The Developing Habitus of the Anti‐Social Behaviour Practitioner:
From Expansion in Years of Plenty to Surviving the Age of Austerity. Journal of Law
and Society, 40(3), 375-402.
Browne, A. (2008). Has there been a decline in values in British society?. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved 12th February, 2015 from
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/has-there-been-decline-values-british-society.
Brunger, M. (2008). Is zero tolerance the answer to our prayers. Fortnight, 462, 12-13.
Retrieved 28th September, 2015 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25704193.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
174
Burck C. 2005. Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use
of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family
Therapy, 27(3), 237–262.
Burney, E. (2002). Talking Tough, Acting Coy: What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour
Order? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(5), 469-484.
Burney, E. (2009). Making People Behave: Anti-Social Behaviour, Politics and Policy (2nd
ed.). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Burt, S. A., Donnellan, M. B., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2011). Age-of-onset or
behavioural sub types? A prospective comparison of two approaches to characterizing
the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
39 (5), 633–644.
Butler, S. (1996). Child protection or professional self-preservation by the baby nurses?:
Public health nurses and child protection in Ireland. Social Science & Medicine, 43,
303–314.
Cabinet Office. (2010). Building the Big Society, London: Cabinet Office. Retrieved 11th
January, 2015 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-the-big-
society.
175
Caelli, K., 2000. The changing face of phenomenological research: traditional and American
phenomenology in nursing. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 366–377.
Cameron, D. (2010) Big society speech. 19 July. Retrieved 24th September, 2014 from
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/ speeches-and-transcripts/2010/07/big-society-
speech-53572.
Carnes, N. C., Lickel, B., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2015). Shared perceptions: Morality is
embedded in social contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 351-
362.
Carr, H., & Cowan, D. (2006). Labelling: constructing definitions of anti-social behaviour? In
J. Flint (eds.) Housing, Governance and Antisocial Behaviour: Principles, Policy and
Practice (pp. 57-78). Bristol: Policy Press.
Carr, H., Cowan, D., & Hunter, C. (2007). Policing the housing crisis. Critical Social Policy,
27(1), 100-127.
Chambers, R. (1989). Editorial introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS
Bulletin, 20(2), 1-7.
Charlick, S. J., Pincombe, J., McKellar, L., & Fielder, A. (2016). Making sense of participant
experiences: Interpretative phenomenological analysis in midwifery
research. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 205-216.
176
Chartered Institute of Housing (1995). Neighbour nuisance: ending the nightmare, Good
Practice Briefing No. 3. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.
Clapham, D., & Kintrea, K. (1986). Rationing, choice and constraint: the allocation of public
housing in Glasgow. Journal of Social Policy, 15(1), 51-67.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), 12-24.
Cleland, A., & Tisdall, K. (2005). The challenge of antisocial behaviour: New relationships
between the state, children and parents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the
Family, 19(3), 395-420.
Crawford, A. (2006). 'Fixing broken promises?': Neighbourhood wardens and social
capital. Urban Studies, 43(5-6), 957-976.
Crawford (2008). ‘Dispersal Powers and the Symbolic Role of Anti-Social Behaviour
Legislation’. Modern Law Review, 71(5), 753–784.
Crawford, A., & Flint, J. (2009). Urban safety, anti-social behaviour and the night-time
economy. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9(4), 403-413.
Critcher, C. (2008). Moral panic analysis: Past, Present and Future. Sociology Compass, 2(4),
1127-1144.
177
Crossley, S., & Lambert, M. (2017). Introduction: ‘Looking for trouble?’ critically examining
the UK government's troubled families programme. Social Policy and Society, 16(1),
81-85.
Cogan, P. (2006). A Perspective on Anti-Social Behaviour. Studies: An Irish Quarterly
Review, 95 (377), 41-56.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and
Rockers. London: McGibbon and Kee.
Coleman R. (2005). Surveillance in the city: Primary definition and urban spatial order.
Crime, Media, Culture, 1(2), 131–148.
Conservatives. (2010). Invitation to Join the Government of Britain: The Conservative
Manifesto 2010. London: The Conservative Party.
Corrigan, P. and Sayer, D. (1985). The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural
Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crime and Disorder Act (Section 1(a)) 1998. Retrieved October 22, 2014 from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents.
Croall, H. (2009). Community safety and economic crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
9(2), 165-185.
178
Crossley. M. L. (2000). Introducing Narrative Psychology: Self, trauma and the construction
of meaning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Curtis, C. (2016). Anti-social Behaviour: A Multi-national Perspective of the Everyday to the
Extreme. London: Sage.
Data Protection Act. (1998). Retrieved June, 09 2015 from
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29.
Denham, B. E. (2008). Folk devils, news icons and the construction of moral panics: heroin
chic and the amplification of drug threats in contemporary society. Journalism
Studies, 9(6), 945-961.
Denovan, A., and Macaskill, A. (2013). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of stress
and coping in first year undergraduates. British Educational Research Journal, 39(6),
1002-1024.
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2011). English Indices of Deprivation.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-
deprivation-2010.
Donoghue, J. C. (2012). Anti-social behaviour, community engagement and the judicial role
in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 52(3), 591-610.
179
Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological
approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131-142.
Driver, J. (2007). Ethics: The Fundamentals. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Eastwood, N. (2015). The coalition’s overhaul of anti-social behaviour legislation comes into
effect. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 15(2),
https://doi-org.edgehill.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/DAT-05-2015-0023.
Edwards, P. (2013). How the News was Made: The Anti-Social Behaviour Day Count,
Newsmaking Criminology and the Construction of Anti-Social Behaviour. Critical
Criminology, 21(2), 211-225.
Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2012). Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the
concept. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(1), 63-69.
Egan, M., Neary, J., Keenan, P. J., & Bond, L. (2013). Perceptions of antisocial behaviour
and negative attitudes towards young people: focus group evidence from adult
residents of disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods (Glasgow, UK). Journal of Youth
Studies, 16(5), 612-627.
Elias, N. (2000) The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Emerson E, Graham H, Hatton C. (2006). Household income and health status in children and
adolescents in Britain. European Journal of Public Health, 16(4), 354–360.
180
Etzioni A. (1988) The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: The Free
Press.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. The Reinvention of American Society. New York:
Touchstone.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2008). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk
factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrow, K., & Prior, D. (2006). ‘Togetherness’? Tackling anti-social behaviour through
community engagement. Criminal Justice Matters, 64(1), 4–5.
Field, F. (2003). Neighbours from hell: the politics of behaviour. London: Politico.
Flinders, M. V. (2012). The demonisation of politicians: moral panics, folk devils and MPs’
expenses. Contemporary Politics, 18(1), 1-17.
Flint, J. (2002). Social housing agencies and the governance of anti-social behaviour.
Housing Studies, 17(4), 619-637.
Flint, J. (2006). Housing, urban governance and anti-social behaviour: perspectives, policy
and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
181
Flint, J. (2014). Conditionality Briefing: Anti-social Behaviour. Retrieved 13th August, 2015
from http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk.
Flint, J., & Nixon, J. (2006). Governing neighbours: Anti-social behaviour orders and new
forms of regulating conduct in the UK. Urban Studies, 43(5-6), 939-955.
Flint, J., Casey, R., Davidson, E., Pawson, H., & Mc Coulough, E. (2007a). Tackling anti-
social behaviour in Glasgow: An evaluation of policy and practice in the Glasgow
Housing Association. Glasgow: Glasgow Housing Association. Retrieved 20th
September, 2014 from: http://www.gha.org.uk.
Flint, J., & Powell, R. (2009). Civilising offensives: education, football and eradicating
sectarianism in Scotland. In Millie, A., (ed.) Securing Respect: Behavioural
Expectations and Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK (219-238). Bristol: Policy Press.
Forrest, S., Myhill, A., & Tilley, N. (2005). Practical Lessons for Involving the Community in
Crime and Disorder problem-solving. Development and Practice Report 43. London:
Home Office.
Forrest S., and Tilley, N. (2005b). Nottingham Anti-Social Behaviour Task Force: Interim
Report. Technical Report to Research, Development and Statistics (RDS) Directorate.
London: Home Office.
Fyson, R., and Yates J. (2011). Anti-social behaviour orders and young people with learning
disabilities. Critical Social Policy, 31(1), 102-125.
182
Gaskell, C. (2008). 'But They Just Don't Respect Us': young people's experiences of
(dis)respected citizenship and the New Labour Respect Agenda. Children's
Geographies, 6(3), 223-238.
Gillies, V. (2005). Meeting parents’ needs? Discourses of ‘support ‘and ‘inclusion’ in family
policy. Critical Social Policy, 25(1), 70-90.
Gillies, V. (2008) ‘Childrearing, Class, and the New Politics of Parenting’. Sociology
Compass, 2(3), 1079–95.
Goode, E., and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994a). Moral Panics: The Social Construction of
Deviance. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press.
Gregg, D. (2010). Family intervention projects: a classic case of policy-based evidence.
London: Centre for Crime and Research Studies. Retrieved December 03, 2014 from
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk.
Green, L. (2013). Should Law Improve Morality?. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 7(3), 473-
494.
183
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-26.
Haan, N. (1982). Can research on morality be "scientific"? American Psychologist, 37(10),
1096-1104.
Haidt J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65-72.
Hall, S., Clarke, J., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis:
Mugging, law and order and the state. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halla, M., & Schneider, F. G. (2014). Taxes and benefits: Two options to cheat on the state.
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 76(3), 411-431.
Hancock, L. (2001). Community, Crime and Disorder: Safety and Regeneration in Urban
Neighbourhoods, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hannon L., DeFronzo J., Prochnow J. (2001). Moral commitment and the effects of social
influences on violent delinquency. Violence and Victims, 16(4), 427– 39.
Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City
and a five city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 271–320.
Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
184
Hayward, K., & Yar, M. (2006). The ‘chav’ phenomenon: Consumption, media and the
construction of a new underclass. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(1), 9-28.
Heap, V. (2009) “I don’t say that bored kids hanging about are bad, but they are scary!”
Exploring attitudinal factors that affect public perceptions of anti-social behaviour.
Papers from the British Criminology Conference (9): 71-91. Available at:
http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume9/5.Heap09.pdf
Heap, V. (2014) Transforming Anti-Social Behaviour: ASBOs, Injunctions and Cross-
Cutting Criminal Justice Concerns. British Journal of Community Justice 12(3): 67-
79.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York:
Harper and Row.
Herman, B. (2000). Morality and everyday life. Proceedings and Addresses of the American
Philosophical Association, 74(2), 29 - 45.
Hewitt, D. (2007). Bovvered? A legal perspective on the ASBO. Journal of Forensic and
Legal Medicine, 14(6), 355-363.
Hier, S. P., Lett, D., Walby, K., & Smith, A. (2011). Beyond folk devil resistance: Linking
moral panic and moral regulation. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(3), 259-276.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
185
Hodgkinson S., & Tilley, N. (2011). Tackling anti-social behaviour: Lessons from New
Labour for the Coalition Government. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(4), 283-
305.
Home Office. (1999). Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders:
Guidance. London: Home Office.
Home Office. (2002). A Guide to Anti-social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour
Contracts. Retrieved October 28, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Home Office. (2003). Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand against Anti-social
Behaviour. London: Home Office.
Home Office. (2003). Anti-Social Behaviour Act. Retrieved December 05, 2014 from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk.
Home Office (2004). Defining and Measuring Anti-Social Behaviour. Retrieved October 28,
2014 from https://www.gov.uk/government.
Home Office. (2006b). Respect Action Plan. Ref. 272299. London: Home Office.
Home Office. (2009). Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: Statistics. Retrieved October 24, 2014
from www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos.
186
Home Office. (2011). More Effective Responses to Anti-social Behaviour. London: Home
Office.
Home Office. (2012). Focus on the Victim: Summary Report on the ASB Call Handling
Trials. Retrieved October 24, 2014 from
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/LPpartnerships.
Home Office. (2013). Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Fact Sheet: Replacing
the ASBO (Parts 1 and 2). Retrieved December 02, 2014 from
https://www.gov.uk/government.
Home Office. (2014). Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-
social behaviour powers. Retrieved December 02, 2014 from
https://www.gov.uk/government.
House of Commons Briefing Paper (2017). The Troubled Families Programme (England).
Retrieved April 19, 2017 from
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing.
Housing Act 1996. Retrieved December 02, 2014 from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/52.
Howitt, D. (2010). Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology. New Jersey NJ:
Prentice Hall.
187
Hughes, N. (2011). Young people ‘as risk’ or young people ‘at risk’: Comparing discourses
of anti-social behaviour in England and Victoria. Critical Social Policy, 31(3), 388-
409.
Hunt, A. (1997). ‘moral panic’ and Moral Language in the Media. The British Journal of
Sociology, 48(4), 632–633.
Hunt, A. (1999). Governing Morals: A Social History of Moral Regulation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hyden, L. C., & Bülow, P. H. (2003). Who's talking: drawing conclusions from focus groups
—some methodological considerations. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 6(4), 305-321.
Innes, M. (2004). Signal crimes and signal disorders: Notes on deviance as communicative
action. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 335-355.
Jewkes, Y. (2004). Media and Crime: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Johnson, R., and Cureton, A. (2018). Kant's Moral Philosophy. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Johnstone, C. (2016). After the asbo: Extending control over young people’s use of public
space in England and wales. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 716-726.
188
Kant, I. (1785/1990). ‘Grounding for the metaphysics of morals’. In S.M. Cahn (ed.) Classics
of Western Philosophy, third edition (pp. 1009-1058). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Karstedt, S., & Farrall, S. (2006). The Moral Economy of Everyday Crime: Markets,
Consumers and Citizens. British Journal of Criminology, 46(6), 1011-1036.
Kaufman, G. (1993). The psychology of shame: Theory and treatment of shame-based
syndromes. London: Routledge.
Kearns, A. & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban
Studies, 37(5), 995–1017.
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2011). The reversal effect of prohibition signs. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 681–688.
Kelling, G., & Coles, C. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime
in our communities. New York: Free Press.
Kirby, S., & Edmondson, A. (2012). The effectiveness of the ASBO–a practitioner
perspective. Safer Communities, 11(2), 96-104.
Koch, K., & Menezes, C. (2015). Virtue ethics: Beyond moral theory. South African Journal
of Bioethics and Law, 8(2), 48-49.
189
Korsgaard, C.M. (2009). Self-constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kukla, R. (2014). Living with Pirates. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23(1), 75-
85.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Kullberg A., Karlsson N., Timpka T., Lindqvist K. (2009). Correlates of local safety related
concerns in a Swedish Community: a cross-sectional study. BioMed Central
Public Health, 9(1), 221.
Le Sage, L., & De Ruyter, D. (2008). Criminal parental responsibility: Blaming parents on
the basis of their duty to control versus their duty to morally educate their children.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(6), 789-802.
Larkin, M., Watts, S., and Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 102–20.
Laverty, S. M. (2008). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of
historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 2(3), 21-35.
190
Lægaard, S. (2008). A Multicultural Social Ethos: Tolerance, Respect or Civility? Paper
presented at the UACES conference ‘Exchanging Ideas on Europe: Values and Ethos
in an Enlarging Europe: Multicultural Debates’. Edinburgh: UK.
Labour Party. (1995). A Quiet Life: tough action on criminal neighbours. London: Labour
Party.
Lent, A. (2008). A Crisis in Civility. Journal of Labour Politics, 16(3/4), 8-19.
Leonard, V. W. (1999). A Heideggerian phenomenological perspective on the concept of the
person. In Polifroni, E. C., and Welch, M. (Eds.). Perspectives on philosophy of
science in nursing: An historical and contemporary anthology (pp. 315-327).
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Liberty. (2015). Campaigning against: Public Space Protection Orders. Retrieved from
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/public-space-protection-orders-0.
Luco, A. (2014). The definition of morality: Threading the needle. Social Theory and
Practice, 40(3), 361.
Lopez, K.A. and Willis, D.G. 2004, Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their
Contributions to Nursing Knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726-735.
191
MacDonald, I. (2002). Anti-social behaviour orders: some current issues. Journal of Social
Welfare and Family Law, 24(2), 205-222.
Macdonald, S. (2006). A Suicidal Woman, Roaming Pigs and a Noisy Trampolinist: Refining
the ASBO's Definition of ‘Anti‐Social Behaviour’. The Modern Law Review, 69(2),
183-213.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth.
Mackenzie, S., Bannister, J., Flint, J., Parr, S., Millie, A. and Fleetwood, J. (2010). The
Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour. Home Office Research Report 34.
London: Home Office.
May, T. (2010). Moving beyond the ASBO. Speech at the Coin Street Community Centre,
London, 28 July. Retrieved from
[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/speeches/beyond-the-asbo?version=1].
Maxwell. J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
McRobbie, A., and Thornton, S.L. (1995). Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for Multi-mediated
Social Worlds. British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 559-74.
Matthews, R. and Briggs, D. (2008). ‘Lost in translation: interpreting and implementing anti-
social behaviour policies’. In Squires, P. (ed.). ASBO nation: the criminalisation of
192
nuisance (pp. 87-100). Bristol: Policy Press.
McCarthy, D. J. (2011). Classing early intervention: Social class, occupational moralities and
criminalization. Critical Social Policy, 31(4), 495-516.
McDowell, L. (2004). Work, workfare, work/life balance and an ethic of care. Progress in
Human Geography, 28(2), 145-163.
McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J., & Hughes, G. (2001). The permanent revolution: New labour,
new public management and the modernization of criminal justice. Criminology &
Criminal Justice, 1(3), 301-318.
Michener, J. (2013). Neighbourhood disorder and local participation: Examining the political
relevance of Broken windows. Political Behavior, 35(4), 777-806.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural Models of Personality and their Relation to
Antisocial Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. Criminology, 39(4), 765-798.
Millie, A., Jacobson, J., McDonald, E. and Hough, M. (2005a). Anti-Social Behaviour
Strategies: Finding a Balance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Millie, A. (2006). Anti-social behaviour: Concerns of minority and marginalised
Londoners. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-20.
193
Millie, A. (2008). Anti‐Social Behaviour in British Cities. Geography Compass, 2(5), 1681-
1696.
Millie, A. (2008). Anti-Social Behaviour, Behavioural Expectations and an Urban Aesthetic.
British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 379–394.
Millie, A. (2009). Anti-Social Behaviour. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Millie, A. (2009). Securing respect: Behavioural expectations and anti-social behaviour in
the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.
Millie, A. (2010). ‘It’s time to move beyond the ASBO’: The Coalition and Anti-Social
Behaviour. Howard League Early Career Academics Bulletin (6), 9–12.
Millie, A. (2010). Moral Politics, Moral Decline and ASB. People, Place and Policy
Online, 4(1), 6 – 13.
Millie, A. (2011). Value Judgments and Criminalization. British Journal of
Criminology, 51(2), 278-295.
Millie, A. (2016). Philosophical Criminology. Bristol: Policy Press.
Miner-Romanoff, K. (2012). Interpretive and Critical Phenomenological Crime Studies: A
Model Design. Qualitative Report, 17(54), 1-32.
194
Ministry of Justice (2011, October 13). Anti-Social Behaviour Order Statistics: England and
Wales 2009. Retrieved 12th November, 2015 from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
116712/asbo10snr.pdf.
Ministry of Justice. (2012, October 18). Anti-social behaviour order statistics: England and
Wales 2011. Retrieved 12th November, 2015 from
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/anti-social-behaviour-order-statistics-
england-and-wales-2011-2.
Ministry of Justice. (2013, October 31). Anti-social behaviour order statistics: England and
Wales 2012. Retrieved 12th November, 2015 from
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/anti-social-behaviour-order-statistics-
england-and-wales-2012.
Moore, S., & Statham, E. (2006). Can Intergenerational Practice Offer a Way of Limiting
Anti‐Social Behaviour and Fear of Crime?. The Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice, 45(5), 468-484.
Morgado, A. M., & Vale-Dias, M. D. L. (2013). The antisocial phenomenon in adolescence:
What is literature telling us?. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(4), 436-443.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative
methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376
195
Neary, J., Egan, M., Keenan, P. J., Lawson, L., & Bond, L. (2013). Damned if they do,
damned if they don't: negotiating the tricky context of anti-social behaviour and
keeping safe in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(1),
118-134.
Nixon, J., Parr, S. and Sanderson, D. (2008). The Longer-term Outcomes for Families Who
Have Worked with Intensive Family Support Projects. London: Communities and
Local Government.
O'Connell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). The public perception of crime prevalence, newspaper
readership and ‘mean world’ attitudes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1(2),
179-195.
Office for National Statistics. (2012). 2011 Census: Key Statistics for England and Wales,
March 2011. Retrieved 15th November, 2014 from www.ons.gov.uk.
Office of Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour in Mixed Tenure
Areas. Housing Research Summary, 178. Wetherby: Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Office for National Statistics. (2013). Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September
2012. Retrieved 15th November, 2014 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons.
Office for National Statistics. (2013). Short Story on anti-social behaviour, 2011/12.
Retrieved 15th November, 2015 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons.
196
Office for National Statistics. (2015). Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending September
2014. Retrieved 24th November, 2015 from ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21.
Palmer, M., Larkin, M., de Visser, R., and Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative
phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
7(2), 99-121.
Papps, P. (1998). Anti-social behaviour strategies—individualistic or holistic? Housing
Studies, 13(5), 639–656.
Parr, S. (20100. Family policy and the governance of anti-social behaviour in the UK:
Women’s experiences of intensive family support. Journal of Social Policy, 40(4),
717-737.
Payne, L. (2003). Anti‐social behaviour. Children & Society, 17(4), 321-324.
Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
197
Pearson, G. (2009) A Jekyll in the classroom, a Hyde in the street: Queen Victoria’s
hooligans’. In: A. Millie (ed.). Securing Respect: Behavioural Expectations and Anti-
Social Behaviour in the UK (pp. 41-71). Bristol: Policy Press.
Peters, D. A. (1993). Improving quality requires consumer input: Using focus groups.
Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 7, 34–41.
Peters, E. (2012). I blame the mother: Educating parents and the gendered nature of parenting
orders. Gender and Education, 24(1), 119-130.
Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2012). A practical guide to using interpretative
phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal,
20(1), 7-14.
Pitts, J. (2001) The New Politics of Youth Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Piotrowska, P. J., Stride, C. B., & Rowe, R. (2012). Social gradients in child and adolescent
antisocial behavior: A systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 38-38.
Prior, D. (2009). The problem of anti-social behaviour and the policy knowledge base:
Analysing the power/knowledge relationship. Critical Social Policy, 29(1), 5-23.
Prior, D. and Paris, A. (2005) Preventing children’s involvement in crime and anti-social
behaviour: A literature review, Research Report No. 623, Nottingham: Department
for Education and Skills.
198
Powell, R., & Flint, J. (2009). (in)formalization and the civilizing process: Applying the work
of Norbert Elias to housing-based anti-social behaviour interventions in the UK.
Housing, Theory and Society, 26(3), 159-178.
Public Order Act 1986. Retrieved October 22, 2014 from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64.
Ramsay, P. (2004). What is anti-social behaviour?. The Criminal Law Review, 908-925.
Respect Task Force. (2006a). Respect Action Plan. London: Home Office.
Respect Task Force (2006b) Family Intervention Projects: Respect Guide. London: Home
Office.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social-scientists and practitioner-
researchers. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rogers M., Smoak N.D., Liu J (2005). Self-reported deviant computer behavior: A big-5,
moral choice, and manipulative exploitive behavior analysis. Deviant Behavior, 27(3),
45– 68.
Rohloff, A., & Wright, S. (2010). Moral Panic and Social Theory Beyond the
Heuristic. Current Sociology, 58(3), 403-419.
199
Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Refiguring the territory of government. Economy
and Society, 25(3), 327–356.
Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Samuels, A. (2005). Anti-social behaviour orders: Their legal and jurisprudential
significance. Journal of Criminal Law, 69(3), 223-231.
Sadler, J. (2008). Implementing the Youth 'Anti-social Behaviour' Agenda: Policing the
Ashton Estate. Youth Justice, 8(1), 57-73.
Sayer, A. (2017). Responding to the troubled families programme: Framing the injuries of
inequality. Social Policy and Society, 16(1), 155-164.
Scott, S., & Parkey, H. (1998). Myths and reality: anti-social behaviour in Scotland. Housing
Studies, 13(3), 325-345.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465-478.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sennett, R. (2003). Respect: The Formation of Character in an Age of Inequality. London:
Penguin Books.
200
Sherman, W. L., and Strange, H. (2004). Experimental ethnography: The marriage of
qualitative and quantitative research. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Sciences, 595(1), 204-221.
Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the Message: theories of influences on
mass media content, New York: Longman.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus
group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American
Neighbourhoods. New York: Free Press.
Skogan, W. G. (2008). Broken Windows: Why—And How—We Should Take Them
Seriously. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 195–201.
Slemrod, J. (2007). Cheating ourselves: the economics of tax evasion. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 25-48.
Smaling, A. (2003). Inductive, analogical, and communicative generalization. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 52-67.
Smith, R. (2003) Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice. Cullompton: Willan.
201
Smith, J. A. (2003). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London:
Sage.
Smith, J.A. (2004) ‘Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological
analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology’. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 1, 39–54.
Smith, J.A. (2007). Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: linking theory and practice.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 2. 3–11.
Smith, J. A. and Eatough, V. (2006). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Breakwell,
G., Fife-Schaw, C., Hammond. S., and Smith, J.A. (Eds). Research methods in
psychology, 3rd edition (pp. 322-341). London: Sage.
Smith, JA. & Eatough, V. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In G. M
Breakwell, J. A Smith & D. B Wright (Eds.) Research Methods in Psychology, 4th
Edition (pp. 439-461). London: Sage.
Smith, J., Flowers, P., and Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Smith, P., & Phillips, T. (2004). Emotional and behavioural responses to everyday incivility:
Challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm [paper in special issue: Fear and loathing in
the new century. Journal of Sociology, 40(4), 378-399.
202
Squires, P. (2006). New Labour and the politics of antisocial behaviour. Critical Social
Policy, 26(1), 144-168.
Squires, P. (2008) (ed.) ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance, Bristol: Policy Press.
Squires, P. and Stephen, D.E. (2005) Rougher Justice: Anti-Social Behaviour and Young
People, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of
phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health
Research, 17(10), 1372-1380.
Thompson, K. (1998). Moral Panics. London & New York: Routledge.
Tisdall, E. K. M. (2006). Antisocial behaviour legislation meets children's services:
challenging perspectives on children, parents and the state. Critical Social
Policy, 26(1), 101-120.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Tyler, T. R., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Building a law-abiding society: Taking public views
about morality and the legitimacy of legal authorities into account when formulating
substantive law. Hofstra Law Review, 28(3), 707.
203
Upson, A. (2006). Perceptions and experience of anti-social behaviour: Findings from the
2004/05 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.
Varnfield, K. (2005). Vulnerable young people and the misuse of anti-social behaviour
orders. Safer Communities, 4(1), 33-37.
Waiton, S. (2005). ‘The politics of antisocial behaviour’. In C. O’Malley and S. Waiton
(eds.). Who’s Antisocial? New Labour and the Politics of Antisocial Behaviour.
Institute of Ideas Occasional Paper No. 2. London: Academy of Ideas Ltd.
Waiton, S. (2008). 'Asocial not Anti-social: The Respect Agenda and the Therapeutic Me', in
P. Squires (ed.). ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Walsh, C. (2003). Dispersal of rights: a critical comment on specified provisions of the anti-
social behaviour bill. Youth Justice, 3(2), 104-111.
Wenham, A. (2017). Struggles and silences: Young people and the ‘Troubled families
programme’. Social Policy and Society, 16(1), 143-153.
Whitaker, R. C. (2003). Obesity prevention in paediatric primary care: four behaviours to
target. Archives of Paediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 157(8), 725.
White, C., Warrener, M., Reeves, A., & La Valle, I. (2008). Family Intervention Projects: An
evaluation of their design, set-up and early outcomes. Retrieved December 04, 2014
204
from https://www.gov.uk.
Whitehead, C.M.E., Stockdale, J.E. and Razzu, G. (2003). The economic and social costs of
anti-social behaviour, London: London School of Economics.
Whiteley, J.M. (1982). Approaches to the evaluation of character development. In: J.M.
Whiteley (Ed.) Character Development in College Students, (111–172). New York:
Character Research Press.
Wicherts, J. M., & Bakker, M. (2014). Broken windows, mediocre methods, and substandard
statistics. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(3), 388-403.
Wigzell, A. (2014). Moving beyond the ASBO? A review of the proposed anti-social
behaviour measures and their implications for children. Safer Communities, 13 (2),
73-82.
Wintour, P. (2005, May 18). Blair believes his agenda is a moral certainty. The Guardian,
p.1. Retrieved 10th December, 2014 from:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/18/uk.society.
Wood, M. (2004). Perceptions and Experiences of Anti-Social Behaviour: Findings from the
British Crime Survey 2003/04. Retrieved 24th October 2014 from
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds.
205
Yan, Y. (2014). The moral implications of immorality. Journal of Religious Ethics, 42(3),
460-493.
York, J. (2006). Neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour: the Audit Commission
report. Safer Communities, 5(4), 17-23.
Young, J., 1971. The Drugtakers. London: McGibbon and Kee.
Appendix A
206
Summary Protocol for Using IPA with Focus Group Data
1. Objects of Concern and Experiential Claims
a. Pick out experiential claims and concerns as they appear in the transcript.
b. Summarise these, and sort into emergent patterns
2. Positionality
a. Explore the role played by facilitators, keeping track of questions, permissions,
encouragements, redirections, etc. (What is their perspective, stance, position?)
b. Explore the function of statements made by respondents. (What is their perspective,
stance?)
3. Roles & Relationships
a. Examine references to other people: What roles and relationships are described?
What sorts of meanings and expectations are attributed to these relationships?
b. What are understood to be the consequences of these?
4. Organisations & Systems
a. Examine references to organisations and systems: How are they described? What
sorts of meanings and expectations are attributed to these?
b. What are understood to be the consequences of these?
5. Stories
Examine the stories told by participants: look at the structure; genre; imagery and
tone. What does each story achieve? How do participants support or impede each
other to share their experiences? What temporal referents exist?
6. Language
Throughout stages 1–5, monitor language use, paying attention to use of metaphor,
euphemism, idiom, etc. Consider:
a. Patterns
Repetition, jargon, stand-out words and phrases, turn-taking, prompting – are these
identified in individuals or the whole group?
b. Context
Impact on language used; descriptions of feelings/emotive language; jargon and
explanation of technical terms; impact of facilitator.
c. Function
How/why is certain language being used? (e.g. to emphasise/back-up a point, to
207
shock, to provoke dis/agreement, to amuse/lighten the tone?)
7. Adaptation of Emergent Themes
Return to the emergent themes from step 1b. and adapt them according to the work
done subsequently. Answering the following questions will help:
a. What experiences are being shared?
b. What are individuals doing by sharing their experiences?
c. How are they making those things meaningful to one another?
d. What are they doing as a group?
e. What are the consensus issues?
f. Where is there conflict? How is this being managed/resolved?
8. Integration of Multiple Cases
Where more than one focus group has taken place, integrate work done with each to
build up an overall analysis of the topic under investigation. Data should be checked
to ensure sufficient homogeneity between focus groups to allow for successful
integration. To draw the analysis to completion:
a. Pick out commonalities and stand-out differences between groups drawing out
superordinate themes.
b. Frequently revisit the transcripts to check themes in relation to original claims
made to help ensure accuracy.
c. Consider the analysis in the wider context of existing relevant theories, models and
explanations.
See Palmer et al., (2010) for an in-depth detailed discussion of each step.
Appendix B
Consent Form
Study Title: Everyday Morality and Anti-social Behaviour
Name of Researcher:
208
Jan Adams. Email address: [email protected].
Mobile Number - 07919406540
Research Supervisor:
Professor Andrew Millie. Email address: [email protected]
Research University:
Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP.
This focus group will investigate anti-social behaviour and everyday morality in modern society. The aim is to investigate how people perceive everyday morality and anti-social behaviour as two related or unrelated concepts. This will be achieved via your participation as an active member in a focus group. The focus group will be recorded for analysis purposes and to minimise interruptions during the discussion. In order to participate in this study, it is necessary that you give your informed consent. By signing this form you are indicating that you give your informed consent to partake in the research. You are also acknowledging that you understand what your role as a participant will involve, the nature of the study, and that you agree to this. Please consider the following points before signing the form: I understand that I am participating in criminological and philosophical research
regarding anti-social behaviour and everyday morality I understand that my identity will not be linked with my data, and that all information I
provide will remain confidential I understand that participation in the research is voluntary and that I may refuse to
participate without penalty I understand that I may withdraw my data up to 4 weeks following my participation I agree to the recording of the focus group and understand that this data will be
confidential, anonymous and stored securely I understand the data gathered in this project may form the basis of a report or other form
of publication or presentation I understand that any demographic information I provide will be treated with the strictest
confidentiality and will not be presented/used to identify me.
By signing this form, I am stating that I am over 18 years of age, and that I understand the above information and consent to participate in this study
Participants signature:……………………………………………………….Date……………Participants name (in capitals):………………………………………………………………...
Researchers signature………………………………………………………..Date……………Researchers Name (in capitals)…………………………………………………………………
Appendix C
Participant Demographic Information Sheet
Study Title: Everyday Morality and Anti-social Behaviour
209
This information sheet is to gather demographical information for your participation in the current research study. All information you answer on this form will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous. You do not have to complete this information to participate in the study if you do not wish to. This data will allow for further analysis and reflection on the data collected. All information provided will kept confidential and stored securely.
Participant Number:
Gender: Marital status:
Age Group (please tick as appropriate):
18-1920-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970+
Do you have children?
If you have children, do you currently have children under the age of 18?
Occupation (if retired please state last occupation prior to retirement):
Postcode: Homeowner / private tenant / social housing tenant:
Appendix D
Participant debriefing formStudy Title: Everyday Morality and Anti-social Behaviour
210
Thank you for participating in the present study regarding everyday morality and anti-social behaviour. The study aimed to discover your beliefs and views relating to whether everyday morality has a role in public perceptions of anti-social behaviour. The use of focus groups and your responses have facilitated the generation of data which was recorded. All data recorded from this interview and all information you have provided will be stored and maintained completely confidential. In addition, all data you have provided will be anonymised to prevent the identification of you or other participants. If you have any additional questions regarding the nature of this study or any general queries whatsoever you may utilise the contact details supplied below. If you desire to withdraw your data from the study this can be done during a four week period from the date of your participation.
In the event that your participation in the study has caused any distress or harm, including from topics discussed in the focus group, there are contact details provided below. There are also details provided for the Samaritans Helpline should you feel the desire to contact a professional counselling service to help with any issues raised in this study.Thank you for your participation in this study.
Researcher contact detailsResearcher’s name: Jan Adams. Email: [email protected]’s name: Andrew Millie. Email: [email protected]
Support contact 1Counselling and Supervisory ServicesThe Health and Well-being Centre, Milton House41 Ruff LaneOrmskirkL39 4QX.Telephone number: 01695650988Email address: [email protected]
Support contact 2 Support for individuals to any person in distressSamaritans helplineTelephone number: 08457909090Web address: www.samaritans.org
Appendices E
Interview ScheduleEveryday Morality and Anti-social Behaviour.
211
> TIMING GUIDE: 00:00
-Briefly explain purpose of the study, what is involved and put participants at ease.
Introduce Researcher
Hello and welcome. Firstly, I would just like to thank you all for coming today. This focus group will discuss anti-social behaviour and everyday morality in modern society. The focus group will be recorded for analysis purposes and to minimise interruptions during the discussion. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions and it is expected that there may be differences of opinion and beliefs. If there are differences please feel free to voice your individual opinions whether it is in agreement or different to any other views voiced in the study. [Go through the information sheet and pass copies round. Then ask participants to sign the consent form]
Are there any questions before we begin?
Section 1 – General/opening questions
Firstly, can we go around the group and just briefly introduce ourselves one at a time by giving your first name.
> TIMING GUIDE: 05:00
Section 2 -- Introductory questions
1. When you hear the term ‘Anti-social Behaviour’ what are your first thoughts?
2. When you hear the term ‘Morality’ what are your first thoughts?
3. What do you think ‘everyday morality’ might refer to?
4. Has anyone ever had any experience of, or witnessed, an example of something they considered to be Anti-social Behaviour?
5. How did this make you feel? In your view was this anti-social behaviour also morally wrong? Why?
6. Has anyone encountered any other everyday behaviour that they thought is morally wrong, or morally right, but which also seemed capable of being perceived as ASB?
> TIMING GUIDE: 20:00
Section 3 - Transition question
212
7. Can you give any three or four examples of everyday behaviours you would perceive as being anti-social? What makes these behaviours anti-social?
8. Can you give any three or four examples of everyday behaviours you would perceive as being morally ‘good’ and three or four that are morally ‘bad’? What makes these behaviours morally good or morally bad?
9. Why, in your opinion, may an individual or group participate in ‘moral’ behaviours?
10. What do you think about the relationship between an individual’s moral views or beliefs and how these may influence their everyday behaviour?
> TIMING GUIDE: 30:00Vignettes: Describe the scenarios to participants, provide sheets with the vignette scenarios detailed and describe one; then progress onto next vignette. Ask the group to explain their answers.
TIMING: approx. 4mins each
Scenario 1: Congregating youthsA bystander sitting at a bus stop has just witnessed a group of youths across the road congregating in a group. Whilst observing, he notices that these individuals are standing in the vicinity of multiple shops, and are causing other users of the public space to walk around them onto the adjacent road. Are these individuals engaging in an immoral act? Is it morally permissible for them to behave this way?Is anyone acting anti-socially? *Act of Distress here is congregating in public spaces*> TIMING: 34:00
Scenario 2: Illegal parkingAn individual is driving home in their car down a street. They arrive at their destination, only to find that someone has illegally parked. This illegal parking is blocking the path for pedestrians, but is also blocking the area designated for parking.Has the individual who has illegally parked behaved in an immoral way? Is this morally permissible?Has the illegal parker behaved anti-socially? *Act of ASB (but also criminal) = Illegal parking*> TIMING: 38:00
Scenario 3: Loud musicThere is a group of individuals who are having a party and playing music very loud. This is a common occurrence. It is causing local neighbours to get distressed and is affecting their
213
daily lifestyles and routines.Are the individuals causing the distress and annoyance through playing their music too loud behaving in a moral or immoral way? Is this morally permissible?Is playing the laud music anti-social? > TIMING: 42:00
Scenario 4: Benefit fraudAn individual has discovered that one of their neighbours has been committing benefit fraud. The neighbour in question has been behaving in this way for some time, and is not legally entitled to the financial support they are receiving.Is the individual behaving in an immoral or moral way? Can this behaviour be considered morally permissible?Is the individual’s behaviour anti-social? * economic crime/ASB?*> TIMING: 46:00
Scenario 5: LitteringA person witnesses another individual throwing some rubbish in an area that imposes fines for those who are caught littering. The person who has littered walks off, with no intention of picking this up. Is this person littering guilty of committing an immoral act? Is this behaviour morally permissible?> TIMING: 50:00
Scenario 6An individual discovers that someone they know has been dishonestly completing their tax reporting. Specifically, the person in questions has been declaring less income that they are actually earning and overstating deductions. Could this behaviour be considered moral or immoral? Is it morally permissible for the person to be falsifying their tax reports and continuing this behaviour?Is it anti-social behaviour?*Act of personal/individual ASB – Tax evasion, economic crime*> TIMING: 54:00
Section 4 – Final questions
11. In your own words, how would you actually describe and define anti-social behaviour?
12. How would you describe and define everyday morality?
13. Of everything discussed today, how would you sum up the links, if any, between everyday morality and anti-social behaviour? If in your opinion there is no links, then why not?
214
14. Is there anything anyone would like to add before we end the focus group?
Thank you for your participation in the group. If you have any questions after you leave you may contact either of the email addresses provided.
> TIMING: 60:00
215
