The Antisocial Attitudes Scale<\/strong>, formally documented within epidemiological literature as the Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale (FAABS)<\/strong>, is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed to assess an adolescent’s cognitive tolerance, moral endorsement, and normative acceptance of delinquent and violent behaviors. Originating from the groundbreaking developmental criminology research conducted by the Social Development Research Group (SDRG)<\/a> at the University of Washington, this instrument functions as a core individual-level risk factor subscale within the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS)<\/em> and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Core Measures. The scale operationalizes adolescent evaluation of misconduct across five explicit behavioral transgressions: carrying a concealed weapon (handgun) to an academic institution, theft of property valued above five dollars, initiating interpersonal physical altercations, severe aggravated assault intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, and unexcused chronic truancy. Evaluated using a 4-point Likert-type cognitive-normative response format ranging from 1 ("Very wrong")<\/em> to 4 ("Not wrong at all")<\/em>, higher composite scores indicate heightened moral disengagement, systemic neutralization of conventional social norms, and pronounced cognitive susceptibility to antisocial conduct. Extensive psychometric testing across national and cross-cultural cohorts demonstrates exceptional reliability, with Cronbach's alpha<\/a> coefficients systematically falling between .78 and .86 across diverse age cohorts (grades 6 through 12). Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently confirm the unidimensionality of the construct, demonstrating strict scalar measurement invariance across biological sex, racial\/ethnic strata, and socio-economic demographics. Predictive validity profiles establish that elevated scores reliably forecast subsequent violent behavior, juvenile justice system involvement, substance experimentation, and institutional school failure over multi-year longitudinal trajectories. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical etiology, psychometric architecture, validity benchmarks, factor analytic parameters, scoring mechanics, and clinical-preventative applications of the instrument.<\/p>\n Antisocial Attitudes Scale, Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale, FAABS, Communities That Care, Social Development Model, adolescent delinquency, risk factor assessment, psychometric validation, moral disengagement, prevention science, juvenile delinquency, longitudinal risk prediction, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, externalizing behavior.<\/p>\n The Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale was formulated, validated, and refined by principal developmental criminologists and prevention scientists affiliated with the Social Development Research Group (SDRG)<\/a> within the School of Social Work at the University of Washington<\/a>, Seattle, Washington, USA:<\/p>\n The primary clinical and epidemiological purpose of the Antisocial Attitudes Scale (FAABS) is to capture the extent to which adolescents hold cognitive beliefs that condone, justify, or downplay violations of societal laws and formal behavioral expectations. In the architecture of modern prevention science, overt behavioral infractions (such as battery, property destruction, or weapons violations) rarely emerge de novo<\/em>; rather, they are preceded and catalyzed by an underlying cognitive architecture that neutralizes internal moral prohibitions and validates antisocial conduct as acceptable, justifiable, or normative. The FAABS was engineered to identify these precursive belief configurations before they translate into irreversible delinquent sequelae or formal contact with the juvenile justice system.<\/p>\n From an applied epidemiological perspective, the scale functions within broader public health prevention frameworks, specifically the Communities That Care (CTC)<\/em> system developed under the auspices of the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)<\/a> and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Municipalities, school districts, and state epidemiological outcome workgroups deploy this measure within broad student health surveys to establish baseline population risk profiles. By quantifying the aggregate prevalence of favorable attitudes toward delinquent conduct within a school or regional community, prevention specialists can strategically allocate evidence-based resources—such as targeted social-emotional learning programs, family management interventions, or restorative justice initiatives—to target the specific cognitive factors driving youth crime.<\/p>\n In clinical, forensic, and juvenile rehabilitative contexts, the instrument provides an objective, standardized metric for assessing individual criminogenic thinking patterns. Grounded in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation, antisocial attitudes constitute one of the "Central Eight" criminogenic risk factors that directly fuel recidivism. By administering the scale at intake, clinicians and probation officers obtain an empirical baseline of an adolescent's normative acceptance of interpersonal violence, weapons possession, theft, and truancy. Subsequent readministrations permit rigorous outcome tracking, verifying whether cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT) or moral reconation therapies (MRT) have effectively reshuffled the youth's internal evaluations from permissive moral disengagement to conventional prosocial integration.<\/p>\n The psychological construct assessed by the Antisocial Attitudes Scale resides at the convergence of cognitive psychology<\/a>, developmental psychopathology, and sociological criminology: it is formally defined as the subjective normative appraisal and moral acceptability of deviant, rule-violating, and violent actions within one's developmental peer ecology. Rather than measuring behavioral delinquency directly (i.e., act-frequency reports of how many times an individual committed a crime), the scale measures evaluative cognitive attitudes<\/em>. It operates on the conceptual premise that beliefs act as cognitive mediators that either permit or proscribe behavior.<\/p>\n The construct encompasses several distinct yet intimately correlated behavioral sub-domains within the broader externalizing spectrum:<\/p>\n Psychologically, endorsing these behaviors as "A little bit wrong" or "Not wrong at all" signifies the operational presence of techniques of neutralization<\/em> (Sykes & Matza, 1957) and moral disengagement<\/em> (Bandura, 1991). The adolescent successfully deconstructs conventional social contracts, disinhibiting internal moral agency through cognitive restructuring, minimizing harmful consequences, or viewing societal rules as illegitimate. Consequently, the construct represents not merely casual rebellious sentiment, but a systemic alienation from conventional moral-legal standards.<\/p>\n The theoretical bedrock of the Antisocial Attitudes Scale is the Social Development Model (SDM)<\/strong>, formulated by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano (1992, 1996). The SDM represents an ambitious, sophisticated synthesis of three foundational criminological paradigms: Social Control Theory<\/a> (Hirschi, 1969), Social Learning Theory<\/a> (Bandura, 1977; Akers, 1977), and Differential Association Theory<\/a> (Sutherland, 1947).<\/p>\n According to the Social Development Model, behavioral outcomes across development are governed by the balance between prosocial and antisocial socialization processes occurring within four fundamental ecological domains: family, school, peer group, and community. The model posits that individuals develop emotional and behavioral bonds to socializing units through three primary catalysts: (a) opportunities<\/em> for active involvement, (b) skills<\/em> required to perform successfully within those opportunities, and (c) consistent reinforcement<\/em> (recognition and praise) for participation. When these mechanisms are prosocial, strong social bonds of attachment and commitment are established with conventional society.<\/p>\n Crucially, the SDM dictates that social bonds do not manage behavior automatically; rather, they foster an internalized belief in the moral validity of conventional social rules<\/em>. When an adolescent is securely bonded to prosocial institutions (such as caring parents and effective schools), they adopt the prosocial standards of those entities, leading to cognitive beliefs that antisocial behaviors are unequivocally "very wrong." Conversely, when an adolescent experiences severe deficits in prosocial reinforcement, or forms attachments to antisocial peers and adult models, a rival socialization pathway activates. In this alternative pathway, the individual is exposed to, learns, and internalizes delinquent behavioral patterns, definitions, and favorable attitudes toward deviant conduct.<\/p>\n In this framework, favorable attitudes toward antisocial behavior operate as a critical proximal mediator. As articulated by Ronald Akers' Social Learning Theory, once definitions favorable to law violation outweigh definitions unfavorable to law violation, behavioral enactment becomes exponentially more probable. The FAABS directly measures this internal balance of definitions. If an adolescent adopts values framing violence as justifiable, theft as inconsequential, and authority evasion as trivial, the protective barrier of conventional social control completely dissolves, directly triggering delinquent conduct.<\/p>\n The psychometric integrity of the Antisocial Attitudes Scale has been confirmed through multi-wave longitudinal investigations and cross-sectional epidemiological studies involving hundreds of thousands of youth across North America, Europe, and Australia.<\/p>\n Construct validity is substantiated by the scale's precise alignment with theoretical expectations derived from the Social Development Model. Confirmatory factor analysis routinely demonstrates that the five items load uniquely and cleanly onto a cohesive latent construct. The scale correlates robustly with conceptually convergent measures: positive associations emerge with peer antisocial behavior ($r = .45$<\/span> to $.62$<\/span>), delinquent peer affiliation ($r = .50$<\/span>), past 30-day substance use ($r = .38$<\/span> to $.52$<\/span>), sensation seeking, and psychopathic-like callous-unemotional traits. Conversely, the instrument exhibits robust negative correlations with prosocial constructs, such as school commitment ($r = -.42$<\/span>), perceived parental rewards for prosocial involvement ($r = -.36$<\/span>), and interaction with prosocial peers ($r = -.40$<\/span>), demonstrating strong convergent and discriminant validity.<\/p>\n The scale possesses remarkable predictive utility, establishing it as a preeminent risk screening index in public health epidemiology. In foundational longitudinal evaluations of the Communities That Care survey architecture (Arthur et al., 2002; Hawkins et al., 2001), baseline scores on the Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale measured in middle school (grades 6–8) prospectively predicted elevated odds of police arrest, self-reported violent crime, and illicit drug dependence by grade 10 and age 21, even after controlling for baseline demographic disparities and prior behavioral involvement. Specific logistic regression models document that each one-unit increase on the 4-point FAABS composite score is associated with an odds ratio ranging from $2.14$ to $3.45$ ($p < .001$<\/span>) for subsequent physical violence perpetration within a two-year follow-up window.<\/p>\n The instrument reliably discriminates between clinical\/adjudicated samples and general community cohorts. In comparative validation studies, youth detained within juvenile justice centers or enrolled in alternative behavioral intervention facilities score systematically and significantly higher on the FAABS ($M = 2.85, SD = 0.65$<\/span>) than general public secondary school populations ($M = 1.48, SD = 0.42$<\/span>), generating very large effect sizes ($Cohen's d > 1.20$<\/span>). Furthermore, discriminant validity from internalizing distress is demonstrated: while the scale correlates profoundly with conduct disorder and oppositional defiant symptomatology ($r > .55$<\/span>), its correlations with generalized anxiety, major depressive disorder, and somatization remain minimal to negligible ($r < .12$<\/span>), verifying that the instrument isolates externalizing cognitive deviance rather than generalized subjective distress.<\/p>\n The Antisocial Attitudes Scale displays exceptional internal consistency and temporal reliability across wide developmental spans and diverse sociodemographic populations.<\/p>\n Extensive field trials administered under the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and state-level Student Surveys of Risk and Protective Factors consistently report high internal reliability. Across multi-state epidemiological samples exceeding 100,000 students (Arthur et al., 2002; Glaser et al., 2005), Cronbach's alpha<\/a> coefficients for the 5-item scale continuously range between $.78$<\/span> and $.86$<\/span>. In a large-scale psychometric evaluation conducted across grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, alpha coefficients demonstrated striking stability across age gradations:<\/p>\n Estimations of composite reliability using McDonald's omega ($\\omega$<\/span>) parallel these findings, typically yielding values between $.82$<\/span> and $.87$<\/span>, confirming that the scale's high internal consistency is not merely an artifact of tau-equivalence assumptions inherent to Cronbach's alpha.<\/p>\n Temporal stability evaluations conducted across short administration windows (2- to 4-week retest intervals) in non-intervention control cohorts yield intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from $.74$<\/span> to $.83$<\/span>, confirming that while attitudes are developmental and pliable, the instrument captures stable, crystallized cognitive appraisals rather than transient, state-dependent mood swings. Over multi-year intervals, scores demonstrate predictable developmental trajectories characterized by moderate autoregressive stability coefficients (one-year stability paths of $\\beta = .45$<\/span> to $.58$<\/span>), reflecting both trait-like continuity in risk and sensitivity to meaningful life transitions and ecological shifts.<\/p>\n The underlying dimensional structure of the Antisocial Attitudes Scale has been rigorously assessed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n In initial scale calibration studies utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extractions with oblique rotations (Promax), examination of scree plots, parallel analysis, and Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalues consistently revealed a distinct, single-factor solution. The initial eigenvalue for the primary dimension substantially exceeds $2.80$, accounting for between $56%$<\/span> and $65%$<\/span> of the total variance across observed items, while secondary eigenvalues precipitously plummet below $0.55$. All five items display robust factor pattern loadings, typically exceeding $.60$<\/span>, with no substantial cross-loadings or anomalous communalities.<\/p>\n Subsequent structural equation modeling across broad adolescent national validation samples (e.g., Arthur et al., 2002; Glaser et al., 2005) confirms an exceptional fit for the unidimensional latent model. Evaluating the 5-item configuration using robust maximum likelihood (MLR) and diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimators suitable for ordinal indicators yields outstanding global goodness-of-fit indices:<\/p>\n Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$<\/span>) across individual items are uniformly high and statistically significant ($p < .001$<\/span>):<\/p>\n Multi-group CFA invariance testing has demonstrated full configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance<\/strong> across biological sex (males vs. females) and diverse racial\/ethnic classifications (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian\/Pacific Islander, Native American). This confirms that differences in observed sum scores reflect genuine developmental variations in antisocial attitudes rather than differential item functioning (DIF) or measurement bias.<\/p>\n The Antisocial Attitudes Scale is an efficient, brief self-report psychometric instrument that can be administered as a standalone screening measure or embedded within comprehensive risk assessment batteries. Below are its core operational attributes:<\/p>\n The Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale was formally formulated and validated in the 1990s as a core component of the Student Survey of Risk and Protective Factors<\/em> and the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS)<\/em>, with landmark psychometric properties codified in the early 2000s (e.g., Arthur et al., 2002). The scale is documented within the public domain for research and educational purposes via the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)<\/a> Core Measures (pages 61–63), developed under federal funding from the United States government.<\/p>\n Licensing and Fee Structure:<\/strong> The instrument is free of charge<\/strong> and categorized as an open-access public health measurement tool for non-commercial educational, scientific, epidemiological, and preventative utilization. The Social Development Research Group (SDRG) and federal sponsoring agencies permit researchers, public school systems, and community coalitions to administer, score, and evaluate the survey without royalty fees.<\/p>\n Conditions of Use:<\/strong> Users must properly cite the originating developers (Social Development Research Group, University of Washington) in all formal reports, presentations, and scientific publications. Commercial reproduction, incorporation into proprietary fee-for-service software platforms, or unauthorized alterations to item phrasing that compromise standard psychometric benchmarking without explicit written authorization from SDRG is prohibited. Inquiries regarding survey implementation, technical assistance, and longitudinal norms should be addressed to:<\/p>\n Social Development Research Group \n Response Scale:<\/strong> A comprehensive psychometric review of the Antisocial Attitudes Scale (Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale – FAABS) developed by the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington, exploring construct validity, theoretical foundation, reliability, and items.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[170,16487,2,23436],"tags":[23437,13478,16270,23438,6,16771,16680,13482],"class_list":["post-7830","psych_scale","type-psych_scale","status-publish","hentry","category-adolescent-psychology","category-criminological-assessment","category-psychometrics","category-risk-assessment-tools","tag-antisocial-attitudes-scale","tag-communities-that-care","tag-delinquency-assessment","tag-faabs","tag-psychometrics","tag-sdrg","tag-social-development-model","tag-youth-survey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/7830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_scale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/7830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Keywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Structural Validity<\/h3>\n
Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity<\/h3>\n
Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Test-Retest Stability<\/h3>\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/h3>\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
\nSchool of Social Work, University of Washington
\n9725 3rd Ave. NE, Suite 401, Seattle, WA 98115-2024
\nWebsite: https:\/\/www.sdrg.org\/<\/a><\/p>\nReferences<\/h2>\n
\n
Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior Scale<\/h3>\n
\n Point values are assigned as follows:
\n
\n 1 = Very wrong<\/span><\/span>
\n 2 = Wrong<\/span><\/span>
\n 3 = A little bit wrong<\/span><\/span>
\n 4 = Not wrong at all<\/span><\/span>
\n <\/span>\n <\/p>\n\n