NatCen (key study) (Social influence) Flashcards
What was the background?
Rioting took place in London from 6th August to 11th August 2011. It started during a peaceful protest that was protesting the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police.
What was the aim?
Investigate what had triggered the August 2011 riots and the extent and nature of the youth involvement.
What was the hypothesis?
- There were no specific hypotheses but they wanted to find out:
-What occured in Tottenham based on eyewitness, police, and media reports
-Who was involved
-What and how young people were involved
What was the design?
Participants were interviewed individually or in groups of 2-4 as some participants felt more comfortable in a group situation.
What was the sample?
- 36 participants
- An even split between over and under 18 year olds
- Diversity of gender, ethnicity, and work status
- Majority still in education
What was the procedure?
Participants were interviewed, either individually or in groups of up to 4 people
What were the results?
- There was a wide range of different people involved, including a mix of age groups, ethnicities, and work status.
- The researchers created 4 different categories of involvement:
-Watchers: People who were present and observed the riots but didn’t get involved in the criminal activity
-Rioters: Young people who were actually involved in violent disturbances and vandalism
-Looters: Young people involved in breaking into shops, stealing from broken-into shops, or stealing goods that had been left on the street
-Non-involved: young people who did not take part
Why did people become ‘watchers’?
- Bystanders: People who happened to live there
- The Curious: Curious people who deliberately chose to be there to see what was going on
Why did people become ‘rioters’?
- Protesters: People who were protesting because they were upset about the death of Mark Duggan
- Retaliators: people who acted to get back on ‘the system’ or the police
- Thrill seekers: People who got involved because they enjoyed the excitement or the ‘buzz’
Why did people become ‘looters’?
- Opportunists: people who saw the chance to steal things for themselves, friends, or family.
- Sellers: People who planned their involvements to maximise their ‘profits’.
Why did people become ‘non-involved’?
- Stay-aways: people who chose not to get involved or observe.
- Wannabes: People who weren’t there but wanted to be there.
What are nudge factors?
Things that encouraged people to get involved
What are tug factors?
Things that discouraged them from getting involved
What were the non-dispositional factors affecting the decision making in people?
- Family attitudes
- Community
- Belonging
- Poverty and materialism
What were the nudge and tug factors for family attitudes?
- Nudge: Relatives not disapproving.
- Tug: Relatives not approving ‘not brought up like that’.
What were the nudge and tug factors for community?
- Nudge: Attachment to a community with a culture of low-level criminal activity.
- Tug: Attachment to a community with pro-social values (including religious communities).
What were the nudge and tug factors for belonging?
- Nudge: Little sense of ownership or stake in society.
- Tug: Sense of ownership or stake in society.
What were the nudge and tug factors for poverty and materialism?
- Nudge: Desire for material goods but no means to pay for them.
- Tug: Adequate resources to purchase the desired goods
What were the dispositional factors affecting decision making in people?
- Previous criminal activity
- Attitude towards authority
- Prospects
What were the nudge and tug factors for previous criminal activity?
- Nudge: Easy to get involved
- Tug: Doesn’t want to be caught again
What were the nudge and tug factors for attitude towards authority?
- Nudge: Cynicism towards politicians, authority figures. Negative experience with the police.
- Tug: No negative experience with the police.
What were the nudge and tug factors for prospects?
- Nudge: Poor job prospects, low income, limited hope for the future. (nothing to lose)
- Tug: In work or having expectations for future work, aspirations for the future. (a lot to lose)
What were the conclusions?
- Anti social criminal behaviour is influenced by:
-Collective behaviour/group processes
-Dispositional/individual factors
-What young people believe is right and wrong
-An individual’s assessment of the risks and benefits of involvement
What were the criticisms?
- People’s memories aren’t always reliable (5 weeks after the riots)
- A distrust of authority may have affected participants’ honesty (data relied on self report)
- Participants might have been affected by ‘social desirability’ when responding to interviewers. (exaggerating the events to sound better)
- Researchers had difficulty recruiting participants, making it hard to generalise results. (only recruited from people who had been imprisoned for their involvement)
