Reicher's Case Study

• What was the aim of Reicher's study?

  To investigate crowd behaviour as ruly or unruly
• What method did Reicher use to gather data for his study?

  He analyzed reports, tv, radio and police reports of St. Pauls riots in 1980. As well as this, he interviewed 20 people immediately after the riot to understand what happened, including six in-depth interviews.
• How many people did Reicher interview after the riot?

  20 people
• What triggered the riot according to Reicher's findings?

  Police raiding a café for drugs
• What actions did the crowd take during the riot?

  They attacked police and properties
• What was the size of the crowd that gathered during the riot?

  Between 300 and 3000 people
• What happened to the rioters when the police left?

  They calmed down and stayed in the area
• What conclusion did Reicher draw about crowd behaviour?

  Crowd behaviour was rule-driven and targeted
• What is one strength of Reicher's research?

  It aligns with other research on crowd behaviour
• What did Marsh's research on football hooligans find?

  Violence didn't escalate beyond a certain point
• What issue does Reicher's methodology face?

  It relies on subjective eyewitness testimony
• What does the reliance on eyewitness testimony imply for the study's validity?

  It may lack validity due to bias
• What is a real-world application of Reicher's research?

  It suggests better policing strategies for riots
• What does Reicher suggest about police presence during riots?

  It may not decrease violence effectively
• How can local communities contribute to managing riots according to Reicher's findings?

  They can 'police' themselves effectively
• What are the key findings of Reicher's study on crowd behaviour?

  • Crowd behaviour can be rule-driven
  • Anger is directed at predictable targets
  • Violence is limited and does not escalate indefinitely
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of Reicher's research methodology?

  Strengths:

  • Aligns with other research findings
  • Provides insights into crowd dynamics

  
  

  Weaknesses:

  • Based on subjective eyewitness accounts
  • Potential bias affecting data validity