Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011)) Flashcards
Background
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
Background to Tottenham
- 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
Aim of study
: to investigate what triggered
the Tottenham riots in 2011 and the extent and nature of youth involvment
Hypothesis
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
research method/design
- prepared for the cabinet office by Morell et al on behalf of natcen
sample
- 36 participants interviewed , split between over and under 18 - diversed - ( gender. ethnicity, work status)
vast majority in education
Procedure
- 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
What happened in Tottenham?
- 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
Results
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
First category of people involved
- 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
Second category of people involved
- 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”.
third category of people involved
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
Fourth category of people involved
- 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
Why did people get young people get involved in looting or rioting?
- 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
Nudge and tug factors for those who were previously involved in criminal activity.
Nudge factor = Easy to get involved, “this is what they do around here”
Tug factor = been caught once, they know the risks
Nudge and tug factors for attitude towards authority
Nudge factor= cynicism towards politicians, authoritive figures. Negative experience w police.
Tug factor = no Negative experience w police.
Nudge and tug factors for prospects
Nudge factor = poor job prospects, low income = “nothing to lose”
Tug factor = in work , work experience or expectation for future work
Nudge and tug factors for family attitudes
Nudge factor = relatives not disapproving
Tug factor = relatives not approving
Nudge and tug factors for community
Nudge factor = Attachment to community with a culture of low - level criminal activity
Tug factor = Attachment to community with a pro-social values
Nudge and tug factors for belonging
Nudge factor = little sense of ownership
Tug factor = sense of ownership in society
Nudge and tug factors for poverty and materialism
Nudge factor = Desire for materialistic goods with no want to pay for them
Tug factor = Adequate resources to purchase materialistic desired goods.
Summary of results
= it was a day like no other, no rules applied = atypical behaviour
= decisions based on if benefits outweigh the risks
Conclusion
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
State 2 criticisms Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011) !
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
State 2 criticisms of Core Study #2: NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011)
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
