NatCen (2011): Dispositional Factors in the Tottenham Riots

Understanding different responses to the same crowd

During the August 2011 riots, some young people committed violence or stole goods, others watched without committing crimes, and others stayed away. Being exposed to the same event did not mean that everyone behaved in the same way.

Morrell, Scott, McNeish and Webster conducted research for the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to understand these differences. Their report, The August riots in England: Understanding the involvement of young people (2011), was prepared for the Cabinet Office.

The study connects anti-social collective behaviour—harmful or rule-breaking behaviour by a group—with dispositional factors, the characteristics and beliefs of individuals. It also examines situational influences: what was happening around people and the opportunities or pressures they encountered.

Tottenham before the riots

The first riot occurred in Tottenham, north London. Crime and disorder subsequently affected other areas of London and cities including Birmingham and Salford.

Tottenham had a history of strained relationships with the police. In 1985, a demonstration following the death of a local woman who had collapsed during a police raid on her home became violent. A police officer was killed during rioting on the Broadwater Farm estate. Although relationships had improved in some respects by 2011, deeply embedded distrust of the police remained.

Economic circumstances also formed part of the background. Tottenham had high unemployment, and 48% of children were classified as living in poverty. Decline in local industry and high-street retail was associated with fewer jobs. Limited employment and career opportunities left many young people feeling hopeless about their futures. This matters because someone who feels they have little to lose may assess the risks of involvement differently from someone with valued opportunities to protect.

However, Tottenham was not simply a community without hope or belonging. Young people and residents expressed pride in local openness and tolerance. Community stakeholders also believed investment in secondary schools was beginning to improve achievement, although these improvements had come too late for those already over 18. This mixed background helps explain why living in Tottenham did not produce a single response to the riots.

What happened on 6–7 August 2011?

On Saturday 6 August 2011, a peaceful protest took place in response to the police handling of the shooting of Mark Duggan. An alleged incident between a young girl and the police sparked clashes that escalated into widespread rioting. Windows were smashed, and offices, shops and homes were looted and set on fire.

The disturbances began at 19:20 on 6 August. Looting did not end until 06:15 on 7 August, and fire crews had all fires under control by 12:00 that day.

These events provide the setting for the study. The researchers wanted to understand why some young people joined the criminal activity while others, facing the same disturbances, did not.

Aim and research design

The overall aim was to explore what triggered young people's involvement in the August riots. The central research question was: Why did young people get involved in the riots? The report investigated what happened, who was involved, and why and how they became involved.

This was a qualitative case study, not an experiment. Qualitative research explores people's experiences and explanations in depth, rather than relying mainly on numerical measurements. The researchers did not manipulate moral beliefs or crowd conditions to test their effects.

Five affected areas were studied: Tottenham, Peckham, Clapham Junction, Salford and Birmingham. Two unaffected areas, Poplar in east London and Firth Park in Sheffield, were included to help explore non-involvement. The relevant riot events here are those in Tottenham.

Sample, materials and procedure

The researchers aimed to speak to around 30 young people in each affected area, seeking a roughly even split of under-18s and those aged 18 or over, with diversity in gender, ethnicity and work status. They worked with local community contacts to reach participants with different experiences, including people who had and had not become involved.

Across the five affected areas, the achieved interview sample included 206 young people: 50 had been involved, 23 had been present but not involved, and 133 had been neither present nor involved. Thirty-nine interviews involved young people in custody. These figures describe the wider study, not a Tottenham-only sample.

Before the main interviews, researchers reviewed social and print media, conviction statistics and information about the selected areas. This helped them understand local circumstances and emerging explanations for the riots.

Participants were interviewed one-to-one and face-to-face as far as possible; some interviews took place in small groups of two to four. Larger discussion groups also involved young people, community stakeholders and residents. Interviews explored experiences, motivations and attitudes towards authority.

Fieldwork tools were used as prompts to assist recall. Some interviews were audio-recorded, while others were documented through field notes. The report used anonymised quotations, allowing participants' experiences to be presented without identifying them.

Findings: different types of involvement

Interviews suggested that those involved came from varied backgrounds: different age groups and ethnicities, people in employment, education or training, and unemployed people. Involvement was not confined to one social group.

The researchers developed a typology, or classification, based on what young people did and their motivations:

The categories were not necessarily exclusive: some young people were both rioters and looters. The distinction between watchers and non-involved people is also important. Watching an event did not itself mean committing a crime, while absence did not necessarily mean disapproving of involvement.

Findings: what encouraged or discouraged involvement?

Young people described nudge factors, which encouraged involvement, and tug factors, which discouraged it.

Nudge factors included anger towards the police and authority, opportunities to obtain goods, excitement and a desire to belong. Poor job prospects and hopelessness could contribute to a feeling of having ‘nothing to lose’. Family attitudes that did not strongly disapprove, or belonging to groups with pro-criminal or anti-authority views, could also make involvement easier.

Tug factors included fear of being caught, disapproval from family or the community, and having work or education commitments that could be jeopardised. Some young people had no negative experiences with the police to motivate retaliation. Having valued commitments could produce a sense of having ‘too much to lose’.

These influences are not all personality traits. An opportunity to steal is situational; a person's beliefs about whether stealing is acceptable are dispositional. Family and community relationships help connect the individual's decisions to their social environment.

Moral beliefs and weighing risks against benefits

Two decision-making processes interacted:

• Beliefs about right and wrong: whether a person considered rioting or looting acceptable or justifiable.
• Assessment of risks and benefits: whether the possible rewards outweighed the personal costs of involvement.

For example, someone might initially believe that rioting was justified but decide not to join because the personal risk was too great. Conversely, the prospect of goods or excitement could make involvement attractive to someone who perceived few costs.

This explains why neither anger nor an opportunity to steal automatically resulted in participation. People interpreted the situation through their own beliefs and circumstances.

Conclusions and links to social influence

NatCen concluded that anti-social criminal behaviour was influenced by a combination of group processes, situational or social factors, and dispositional or individual factors. Moral beliefs and assessments of costs and benefits helped explain involvement and non-involvement.

The explanation is therefore broader than saying either ‘the crowd made them do it’ or ‘they had criminal personalities’. It connects social influence with individual differences: the crowd provided a setting and opportunities, but people responded differently.

It also recognises an element of decision-making rather than treating behaviour as inevitable. However, those choices were made within social circumstances, such as relationships with the police, family attitudes and future opportunities.

Evaluating the study

Detailed accounts are a strength. Interviews allowed young people to explain their experiences and motives in their own words. Including watchers, non-involved people and community members helped researchers consider more than the accounts of people who committed crimes. Comparing accounts could produce a fuller explanation than relying on a single viewpoint.

Self-reports may be inaccurate. Interviews took place about five weeks after the riots, so memories could have faded or been influenced by media coverage and later conversations. People may also have had incomplete insight into their own motivations.

Social desirability could weaken validity. Participants might minimise criminal involvement, justify their actions or exaggerate participation to appear tough. Distrust of authority could make some reluctant to disclose information honestly. Anonymity and confidentiality could encourage openness, but would not guarantee accurate answers.

Generalisability is limited. The researchers sought diversity, but participants were accessed through local contacts and included people in custody. This was not a random sample of everyone involved in the riots. People who were difficult to reach might have had different experiences. Tottenham's particular history also means its explanations cannot automatically be applied to every crowd or riot.

The study cannot establish cause and effect. It reconstructed experiences after the events rather than controlling variables. It provides useful evidence about reported influences, but cannot prove that a particular moral belief or social circumstance caused an individual to riot.

Overall, the study offers a detailed, multi-factor explanation of involvement and non-involvement. Its value lies in understanding different experiences, while its conclusions must be qualified by the limits of retrospective self-report and sampling.

Background and aim

• NatCen/Morrell et al. (2011): investigated why young people became involved in the August riots.
• Tottenham context: longstanding police distrust, unemployment and limited opportunities, alongside local pride and belonging.
• 6 August: peaceful protest over police handling of Mark Duggan's shooting; alleged girl–police incident preceded escalating clashes.
• Disturbances began 19:20; looting ended 06:15 on 7 August; fires controlled by 12:00.

Method

• Qualitative case study prepared for the Cabinet Office.
• Five affected areas; two unaffected comparison areas: Poplar and Firth Park.
• Target: around 30 young people per affected area, varied backgrounds and roughly balanced age groups.
• Achieved: 206 interview participants across affected areas, not Tottenham alone.
• Face-to-face interviews, some small-group interviews, larger discussions with young people and community members.
• Media and conviction information, recall prompts, audio recordings and field notes supported the research.

Essential findings

• Watchers: bystanders; the curious.
• Rioters: protesters; retaliators; thrill-seekers.
• Looters: opportunists; sellers.
• Non-involved: stay-aways; wannabes.
• Categories could overlap; involvement crossed age, ethnicity and employment backgrounds.
• Nudges: police anger, goods, excitement, belonging, ‘nothing to lose’.
• Tugs: fear of capture, disapproval, valued work or education, ‘too much to lose’.

Conclusion

Involvement reflected interacting group, situational and dispositional influences. Decisions combined:

1. Beliefs about right and wrong.
2. Perceived risks versus benefits.

Evaluation

• Strength: detailed accounts from varied perspectives, including non-involved people.
• Limitations: delayed recall, social desirability, distrust and limited generalisability.
• Retrospective interviews identify reported influences, not proven causes.