Practice Profile: Social Skills Training for Preventing Antisocial Behavior of Youth

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Overall antisocial behavior

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Aggression

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | General antisocial behaviors

Date: This profile was posted on September 20, 2021

This practice involves the promotion of social and social-cognitive competencies to prevent future antisocial behavior. The practice is rated Effective for preventing overall antisocial behavior, aggression, delinquency, oppositional and disruptive behaviors, and general antisocial behavior.

Practice Goals

Aggression, early conduct problems, and other delinquency behaviors are some of the most common problem behaviors found in childhood, and can be an indicator for antisocial behaviors and psychiatric problems in the future (Lösel and Bender 2012). Social skills training aims to prevent these problems from developing by teaching youth various social competences, such as effective social information processing and managing interpersonal conflicts (Beelmann and Lösel 2021).

Practice Activities/Target Population

Social skills trainings for youth can take many forms but often are guided by specific instruction manuals. Programs can be universal and can be implemented for all youth in a school or neighborhood, or they can be targeted specifically for youths who display certain risk factors or who have already exhibited problem behaviors. Programs are also implemented in a variety of settings, such as at school, at home, or in a community setting and can be led by parents, teachers, and other community leaders. Group trainings, individual trainings, or a combination of both are commonly used. The aim of these programs is to teach protective behaviors and skills such as social problem solving, nonaggressive social information processing, self-control, proper perspective taking, and prosocial attitudes. These can be taught through group discussions, role-playing, videos, and homework assignments. Some social skills training programs include a therapeutic element, but education is usually the focus (Beelmann and Lösel 2021; Social and Character Development Research Consortium 2010).

One example of a social skills training is the Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS®) program (https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/193). PATHS® is a universal, multiyear program that can be implemented for children in schools from preschool to sixth grade. Lessons on three main concepts (self-control, feelings and relationships, and social problem solving) are incorporated into the regular classroom curriculum and adapted to be age appropriate depending on grade level. (Domitrovich, Cortes, and Greenberg 2007). Another example of a child social skills training is The Incredible Years | Child Training Program (https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/194).This program is selective for young children ages 4 to 8 who are either at high risk for or have been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Lessons on topics such as empathy, anger management, and conflict resolution are given mainly through performance-based role-play in weekly sessions (Webster–Stratton, Reid, and Hammond 2004).

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Overall antisocial behavior

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Overall antisocial behavior

Across 119 comparisons, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) found a statistically significant effect size of 0.25 (weighted mean) for overall antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression, violence, and delinquency). This means that youths who participated in social skills training interventions were less likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors at postintervention, compared with youths who did not participate in an intervention.

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Aggression

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Aggression

Across 77 comparisons, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) found a statistically significant effect size of 0.23 (weighted mean) for aggression (i.e., aggressive actions, verbal aggression). This means that youths who participated in social skills training interventions were less likely to exhibit aggressive behavior at postintervention, compared with youths who did not participate in an intervention.

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Across 21 comparisons, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) found a statistically significant effect size of 0.27 (weighted mean) for delinquency (e.g., theft, school suspensions, drug use). This means that youths who participated in social skills training interventions were less likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors at postintervention, compared with youths who did not participate in an intervention.

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors

Across 35 comparisons, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) found a statistically significant effect size of 0.27 for oppositional/disruptive behaviors (e.g., being argumentative, disruptive behavior in school). This means that youths who participated in social skills training interventions were less likely to exhibit oppositional or disruptive behaviors at postintervention, compared with youths who did not participate in an intervention.

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | General antisocial behaviors

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors | General antisocial behaviors

Across 43 studies, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) found a statistically significant effect size of 0.21 for general antisocial behaviors (i.e., summary ratings of externalizing behaviors). This means that youths who participated in social skills training interventions were less likely to exhibit general antisocial behaviors at postintervention, compared with youths who did not participate in an intervention.

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1971-2015	130	31114

Meta Analysis 1

Using meta-analytic techniques, Beelmann and Lösel (2021) analyzed the effect of social skills training interventions on the prevention of antisocial behavior in youth. To identify eligible studies, electronic searches of PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubPsych, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ERIC, Web of Science, and PubMed were conducted. A combination of search terms referring to the type of intervention (e.g., social skills training, prevention), the intervention field (e.g., antisocial behavior, delinquency), age of target group (e.g., juvenile, adolescent), and the study design (i.e., randomized) was used. Following this search, the references of all eligible studies were screened for further eligible research.

To be eligible for inclusion, a study had to 1) contain an evaluation of a social skills training program that was specifically designed to prevent antisocial behavior and crime in youth, 2) compare an intervention and control group in a randomized controlled design (RCT), 3) have an age range between 0 and 18 years, 4) be preventive, such as a universal prevention program or a targeted prevention for at-risk groups, 5) assess at least one outcome for antisocial behavior or crime, and 6) be in either English or German up to the year 2015. Studies were excluded that either 1) evaluated social skills training combined with additional programs or program components (such as parent or teacher training), 2) compared two different programs without an untreated control, or 3) evaluated programs for already adjudicated juveniles.

A total of 98 reports that included 31,140 youths were identified as eligible for inclusion. Some reports contained more than one independent study or separate data for two or more subgroups (such as two different age groups or risk level) and were treated as separate data sets, which resulted in a total of 113 studies and 130 RCT comparisons between an intervention and a control group. The RCT comparisons were the final basic unit of analysis. Most reports were of interventions from the United States (74 reports), but also included interventions from Germany (8 reports), Canada (6 reports), Israel (2 reports), the Netherlands (2 reports), and Austria, China, England, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland (1 report each). The average sample size of a comparison was 263 participants, but these ranged between 13 and 6,733 participants.

For the CrimeSolutions review of this meta-analysis, the focus was on the 119 comparisons (derived from 98 reports) that examined the effects of skills building interventions on youths’ antisocial behavior at the immediate postintervention. Of these 119 comparisons, 101 were group training interventions, 10 were individual training, 5 were a combination of both group and individual training, 2 were self-help conditions, and 1 was individual supervision and care. A total of 54 interventions were indicated (for youths who were already exhibiting antisocial behaviors), 36 were universal (for all youths in a neighborhood or school) and 29 were selective (for youths with specific risk factors, such as low socioeconomic status).

The effect size was calculated as the standardized mean difference. The inverse of the squared standard error was used to weight effect sizes.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 0 - 18

Gender: Male, Female

Race/Ethnicity: Other

Setting (Delivery): School, Other Community Setting, Home

Practice Type: Academic Skills Enhancement, Classroom Curricula, Conflict Resolution/Interpersonal Skills, School/Classroom Environment

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Social Skills Training for Preventing Antisocial Behavior of Youth

Notice

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals

Practice Activities/Target Population

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs