Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011))

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

rioting took place in London to 6 aug - 11 aug 2011
It started during a peaceful protest in response to fatal shooting of mark Duggan by the police

Question 2

Background to Tottenham riot

Answer 2

• Tottenham has a history of rioting, in 1985 a protest began outside a police station following the death of a women who collapsed during a raid. This became violent and a police officer was killed.
• Tottenham is an area of high unemployment due to declining local industry , 48% children living there were classified as living in poverty
• Still viewed as a good place to live where openness and tolerance were valued

Question 3

Aim of study

Answer 3

: to investigate what triggered
the Tottenham riots in 2011 and the extent and nature of youth involvment

Question 4

Hypothesis

Answer 4

Morell at al wanted to know why young people get involved in riots , they did not have a specific hypothesis but their report was broken down into sections

• what occurred - based on police and eyewitness
• who was involved
• why and how young people are involved

Question 5

research method/design

Answer 5

• prepared for the cabinet office by Morell et al on behalf of natcen

Question 6

sample

Answer 6

• 36 participants interviewed , split between over and under 18 - diversed - ( gender. ethnicity, work status)
  vast majority in education

Question 7

Procedure

Answer 7

• Data gathered 5 weeks after the
  riots took place. Incident between
  the police and a girl was the trigger
  for a peaceful protest becoming
  violent.
• participants were assured that research was confidential and anonymous
• researcher agreed not to report any criminal behaviour
• Participants were interviewed individually or in groups of 2 or 4

Question 8

What happened in Tottenham?

Answer 8

• 16:00 - family, friends of Mark Duggan gather outside police station for peaceful protest (300)
• 19:20 - bottles thrown at police cars and a vehicle set alight
  from 20:00 to 23:00
  riot officers, police arrive to stop it = get attacked (bottles, fireworks)
  London fire brigade get first call to arrive
  shops set alight

continued until 6:15 am

Question 9

Results

Answer 9

Key motivation for
involvement: benefitting
from exciting experience,
opportunity to loot, getting
back at police.
* Nudge (encouraged) e.g.
poor job prospects, and tug
(discouraged) e.g. getting
caught, factors influenced
people.
- wide range of ppl involved

Question 10

First category of people involved

Answer 10

• Watchers : young ppl observed but not take part
• Bystanders = young people who happen to be there , live locally or happen to be passing through at that time
• The curious young people who deliberately chose to be there to observe

Question 11

Second category of people involved

Answer 11

• Rioters : young people who were actually involved in violent disturbances and vandalism
• Protesters : Young people acting out due to being upset by the death of Mark Duggan
• Retaliators : Young people acting out to get their own back at the police and on the “system”.
• Thrill- seekers : young people involved who enjoyed the excitement and the “buzz”.

Question 12

third category of people involved

Answer 12

Looters : young people involved in breaking into shops or stealing goods left on the street

• Opportunists - young people who saw the chance to steal for themselves, family or to sell.

-Sellers - Young people who planned their involvement to maximise profit

Question 13

Fourth category of people involved

Answer 13

• Non involved : young people who did not take part
• Stay aways = young people who chose to not get involved or observe
• Wannabes - Young people who weren’t there but would have liked to been there

Question 14

Why did people get young people get involved in looting or rioting?

Answer 14

• Key motivation for rioting and looting = benefitting from thrill and excitement, having opportunity to acquire things w/o paying for profit and getting back at police
• The young people identified things that encouraged them to get involved

Nudge factors: These things encouraged them to get involved

Tug factors : These things discouraged them to get involved

Question 15

Nudge and tug factors for those who were previously involved in criminal activity.

Answer 15

Nudge factor = Easy to get involved, “this is what they do around here”

Tug factor = been caught once, they know the risks

Question 16

Nudge and tug factors for attitude towards authority

Answer 16

Nudge factor= cynicism towards politicians, authoritive figures. Negative experience w police.

Tug factor = no Negative experience w police.

Question 17

Nudge and tug factors for prospects

Answer 17

Nudge factor = poor job prospects, low income = “nothing to lose”

Tug factor = in work , work experience or expectation for future work

Question 18

Nudge and tug factors for family attitudes

Answer 18

Nudge factor = relatives not disapproving

Tug factor = relatives not approving

Question 19

Nudge and tug factors for community

Answer 19

Nudge factor = Attachment to community with a culture of low - level criminal activity

Tug factor = Attachment to community with a pro-social values

Question 20

Nudge and tug factors for belonging

Answer 20

Nudge factor = little sense of ownership

Tug factor = sense of ownership in society

Question 21

Nudge and tug factors for poverty and materialism

Answer 21

Nudge factor = Desire for materialistic goods with no want to pay for them

Tug factor = Adequate resources to purchase materialistic desired goods.

Question 22

Summary of results

Answer 22

= it was a day like no other, no rules applied = atypical behaviour

= decisions based on if benefits outweigh the risks

Question 23

Conclusion

Answer 23

Anti-social criminal behaviour is influenced by:

• Collective behaviour / group processes
• Dispositional / individual factors
• Belief about right and wrong
• An individuals assessment on the risks and benefits of involvement

Question 24

State 2 criticisms Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011) !

Answer 24

1) People’s memory of events is not always reliable
- The participants were interviewed 5 weeks after the event. The study used retrospective data so after this time memory could have faded .
Or even distorted by talking to others about event.

2) A distrust of authority may have affected participants’ honesty
Many of the young people involved in the riots had an intense distrust of authoritative figures.
- Data relied on self - report = not completely honest

Question 25

State 2 criticisms of Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011)

Answer 25

3) Participants could have been affected by social desirability when responding to interviewers.
They might have gave answers they thought sounded good.
This works both ways, like a criminal exaggerating events to seem cool or if the real motivation for some was lack of opportunity.

4) The researchers had difficulty recruiting participants , making it harder to generalise the results.
As they wanted to gather data and information very soon after the event it was difficult recruiting participants so they didn’t have time to build a trust with communities. They mainly used participants sent to prison for their involvement = not representative of motivation to take part for all