a psycosociological apprach to moral panic
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
1/19
Crime Media Culture7(3) 293–311
© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1741659011417607
cmc.sagepub.com
A social psychological approachto understanding moral panic
Julia M Pearce1 and Elizabeth Charman2
AbstractWhile moral panic remains a key sociological concept, it has been criticized for its lack of
explanatory force. This article reports the results of a study designed to examine whether a social
psychological approach to moral panic can (a) theorize the content as well as process of moralpanic, and (b) understand both the cause and the impact of this response. This approach was
tested in relation to the topic of asylum seekers. The research was based on a qualitative analysis
of 120 newspaper articles, 8 focus groups with members of the host community and 25 semi-
structured interviews with people who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom. A theoretical
framework of social representations and social identity theory was used to explore psychological
processes that may underpin host receptivity to moral panic discourse about asylum seekers and
the impact such a moral panic may have on those labelled as ‘folk devils’. Results indicated that
social psychological processes are one of the contributory factors to host receptivity to moral
panic, and strategies adopted by ‘folk devils’ to cope with stigmatized group membership were
identified. Implications of the findings for future moral panic research are discussed.
Keywordsasylum seekers, moral panic, social identity, social representations, thematic analysis
IntroductionWhile moral panic remains a key sociological concept, it has been subject to a number of impor-
tant criticisms (Critcher, 2003, 2008). Some of these relate to the way the concept has beenapplied, for example, the use of the media as a proxy for public opinion (Ungar, 2001), and failure
to adequately operationalize criteria for identifying a moral panic (McCorckle and Miethe, 1998).
However, these issues can be addressed by the use of methodological rigour and as such do not
threaten the usefulness of the concept. A more important issue is the extent to which moral panic
models can be explanatory as well as descriptive. As Goode (2000) highlights, there is no such
thing as ‘moral panic theory’. Rather, moral panic is an analytic concept to which a number of
existing theories have been applied. Key among these are Cohen’s (1972) original ‘politics of
1 King’s College London, UK
2 London Metropolitan University, UKEmail: [email protected]
417607CMCXXX10.1177/17416590114176 07Pearce and CharmanCri me Media Culture
Article
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
2/19
294 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
anxiety’ approach based on labelling theory and deviancy amplification, Hall et al.’s (1978) Marxist
account which relates moral panics to the struggle over hegemony, and Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s
(1994) social constructionist model which conceptualizes moral panics as collective behaviour trig-
gered by particular interest groups.
Critcher (2003, 2008) and Thompson (1998) have identified two key areas where classic moralpanic models lack explanatory power. The first is the lack of theorization of the causes of moral
panic, specifically in relation to public receptivity to moral panic discourses. This tends to be attrib-
uted to unspecified ‘social anxiety’, presenting moral panics as ‘a consequence of some (hypo-
thetically universal, endlessly cyclical) feature of social life, namely panickyness’ (Sparks, 1995: 55).
However, as moral panics are seen as both resulting from and evidence for this, the explanation
becomes somewhat circular, and it has been suggested that this account is founded on an
untested a priori assumption that social actors experience a collectively shared insecurity (Hier,
2003). The second limitation is the focus on process rather than content, which does not allow
analysis of the construction of events as moral panics.
This article will argue that both of these limitations may be addressed by adopting a social
psychological approach to moral panic. Social psychology focuses on the interaction between the
individual and the social with a view to understanding how societies function (Moscovici, 2001).
By exploring group-level responses, a social psychological analysis has the potential not only to
help explain public receptivity to moral panic discourse but also to explore the psychological
impact of moral panic on individuals classified as ‘folk devils’, an issue that has been relatively
neglected in the moral panic literature to date. There are some notable exceptions. For example,
deYoung (1998) demonstrates that ‘folk devils’ are not necessarily the marginalized, defenceless
figures of classic moral panic theorizing; and St Cyr (2003) draws attention to the importance of
measuring the impact of moral panic on ‘folk devils’. However, neither provides a theoretical
model for analysing this impact. This is an important omission in current moral panic theorizing,
as moral panics play a key role in drawing boundaries around communities and determining who
does or does not belong (Critcher, 2006).
One theoretical framework that lends itself particularly well to exploring intergroup relation-
ships is social identity theory (SIT). SIT analyses the behaviour of people in relation to their self-
conception as group members, recognizing that group behaviour is distinct from interpersonal
behaviour (Tajfel, 1981). In identifying the social psychological processes that lead to intergroup
conflict as well as elaborating on the strategies adopted to deal with the resultant challenges, SIT
has the potential to enhance current models of moral panic. However, as with existing moralpanic models, SIT prioritizes process over content; in order to address both limitations identified
in the literature it is therefore necessary to go beyond a traditional social identity analysis.
One approach increasingly used in combination with SIT is the theory of social representations
(Moloney and Walker, 2007). Social representations theory (SRT) was developed by Serge
Moscovici (2008 [1961/1976]), adapted from Durkheim’s concept of collective representations.
Moscovici (1963: 251) describes social representation as ‘the elaboration of a social object by the
community for the purpose of behaving and communicating’. The primary focus of SRT is there-
fore social knowledge, in particular the content of common-sense knowledge and the ways this
is expressed in language and communication. Consequently, SRT provides a means of under-standing social knowledge that addresses the construction and transformation of this knowledge
in relation to different social contexts and across different social groups. In foregrounding the
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
3/19
Pearce and Charman
295
importance of content, a social representations approach to social identity has the potential to
address the way that events are constructed as a moral panic.
This article reports the results of a study designed to examine whether a social psychological
approach to moral panic which draws on SIT and SRT is able to (a) theorize the content as well as
process of moral panic, and (b) understand both the cause and the impact of this response (Pearce,2010). This approach was tested in relation to the topic of asylum seekers. Since the early 1990s,
the issue of asylum has been at the forefront of UK media and government discussion (Finney,
2005; Lewis 2005). The overwhelmingly negative response to asylum seekers has led a number of
commentators to describe this reaction as a ‘moral panic’ (e.g. Barclay et al., 2003; Berkeley et al.,
2006; Clarke and Garner, 2005; Finney and Robinson, 2007; Grillo, 2005; ICAR, 2004; Kushner,
2003; Robinson, 2003) and Cohen himself, in his introduction to the latest edition of Folk Devils
and Moral Panics, uses refugees and asylum seekers as an example of a contemporary moral panic
(Cohen, 2002).
The data for this study were drawn from three sources: UK national press coverage of asylum,
focus groups with members of the ‘host community’, and individual interviews with people who
have sought asylum in the UK. National daily newspapers were selected as they are the most
widely read print media, they set the tone for public debate and they shape the selection of stories
for television news coverage (Lewis, 2005). Focus groups allowed access to discussion between
group members and exploration of the collective sense-making of the ‘host’ community. Individual
interviews enabled a more in-depth exploration of ‘folk devil’ experiences and were more appro-
priate for these interviewees given that the topic was likely to be of personal sensitivity and con-
cern experiences that could provoke anxiety (Gaskell, 2000).
MethodologyMedia SampleThe period of analysis was from 1 January to 31 December 2006. The sample was drawn from the
four top-selling UK national daily tabloids and four top-selling UK national daily broadsheet news-
papers. Publications included for analysis (highest circulation first) were the Sun, Daily Mirror ,
Daily Express, Daily Mail , The Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Independent . Publications
with the highest circulation figures were used as the public are most likely to have been exposed
to this content. Both tabloid and broadsheet publications were included to maximize the range of
editorial positions and potential audiences. The sample included articles, editorials and readers’letters which referred to asylum seekers or the asylum issue in the UK.
Prior to this study, a content analysis of 415 articles (a random sample of 25% of coverage
of asylum during the sampling period) was conducted and established that there was empirical
evidence that the response to asylum seekers could be considered a moral panic. For the social
representations analysis it was necessary to reduce this sample to allow a more detailed qualita-
tive exploration of the content of articles. A corpus construction approach was adopted to
maximize the spread of representations that were accessed (as recommended by Gaskell and
Bauer, 2000). To this end, ten articles were purposively selected from each month to ensure the
sample included those that had been coded both positively and negatively in the quantitativecontent analysis and were drawn from all publications. This produced a sample of 120 articles
for analysis.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
4/19
296 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
Focus GroupsFocus groups were conducted between March and August 2008 with members of the ‘host’ com-
munity (inclusion based on self-selection as ‘British’). Focus groups were recruited on a purposive
basis to maximize variation in participants’ occupations, educational levels and experience of
diversity. The sample consisted of eight focus groups of three to six participants with a total of 36participants (16 males, 20 females). Focus groups were conducted with naturally occurring groups
(e.g. neighbours, colleagues, families) as this enhanced the likelihood that participants would
share values and concerns (Bauer and Gaskell, 1999) and their discussion would reflect ‘real-
world’ interactions (Warr, 2005). They were conducted in a number of locations in the UK, selected
to vary in terms of size, region, rural/urban and ethnic diversity. This sampling procedure was also
designed to maximize variation with a view to reaching meaning saturation.
The discussion guide was constructed to cover participants’ understandings of what is meant
by the term ‘asylum seeker’, public opinion of asylum seekers, perceptions of media coverage of
asylum, and whether ‘asylum seekers’ could become ‘British’. The majority of focus groups lastedapproximately one hour and were all digitally recorded and fully transcribed.
Individual InterviewsInterviews were conducted between September 2007 and March 2008, with individuals who have
sought asylum in the UK. ‘Asylum seeker’ covers a heterogeneous population, with individuals
coming from diverse national and ethnic backgrounds with different socio-economic and cultural
experiences, so inclusion was based on self-selection and a purposive sampling method was used
to maximize variety. The sample consisted of 25 semi-structured interviews with asylum seekers
and former asylum seekers from 14 different countries, 16 males and 9 females, ranging in age
from 19 to 54 years, and from a variety of different socio-economic backgrounds.
The interview guide focused on participants’ exposure to and understanding of UK media cov-
erage of asylum seekers, their perceptions of the host population’s views, the impact the label
‘asylum seeker’ had on them as individuals and the extent to which they identified with this group
membership and considered group boundaries to be permeable. The majority of the interviews
lasted 60–90 minutes and all were digitally recorded and transcribed.
The AnalysisSocial representations were explored using thematic analysis (as described by Braun and Clarke,
2006), one of the most clearly specified methods of qualitative data analysis. Thematic analysis
allows the comparison of social units while remaining sensitive to the specific contents of indi-
vidual cases, as it does not attempt to reduce the text to numerical data (Flick, 2009). Furthermore,
while the analysis of qualitative material is necessarily a subjective process, thematic analysis is a
rigorous procedure which provides a formalized approach to analysis that goes beyond intuition
(Attride-Stirling, 2001). A coding frame was developed using an inductive process in which no
initial assumptions were made regarding the relationship between codes, but as the analysis
developed connections were established and used to identify social representations. Each data setwas analysed separately and then synthesized in order to examine commonalities and differences
between and within the different components of representations.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
5/19
Pearce and Charman
297
The social identity analysis was designed to (a) identify the extent to which public receptivity to
moral panic discourse could be explained by social identity processes, and (b) examine the impact
of stigmatized group membership on individuals seeking asylum in the UK. This required the
re-analysis of focus group and interview data, which indicated the use of qualitative methods. A
thematic analysis was conducted using two theoretically driven coding frames to test the follow-ing predictions of SIT.
According to SIT, social identity is based on social categorization, whereby others are classified
according to whether they belong to the same category (in-group) or a different category (out-
group) as oneself. The need for positive identity combined with this categorization process leads
to social comparisons that enhance positive and distinctive in-group images, while also giving rise
to negative and homogenized out-group images (Turner, 1999). SIT predicts that high status
groups will be prejudiced against lower status groups when group boundaries are perceived as
permeable and status differences are perceived as legitimate (Reynolds and Turner, 2001). To
explore the extent to which host group receptivity to moral panic discourse can be explained by
SIT, a coding frame was developed to examine evidence for social categorization and comparison
processes and to test the hypothesis that the host community will be more receptive to moral
panic discourse when group boundaries are perceived as permeable and status differences are
perceived as legitimate.
SIT also provides specific predictions regarding strategies that minority group members may
adopt in order to challenge stigmatized social identity. If boundaries are considered permeable
(i.e. there is a social mobility belief structure), individual ‘exit’ strategies will be followed, whereas
if an individual’s fate is perceived to be tied to group membership (i.e. there is a social change
belief structure), collective action is more likely (Tajfel, 1978). Social mobility is likely to lead to
individual assimilation, whereby individuals disassociate themselves with the subordinate group
and show preference for the out-group. In contrast, a social change belief structure is likely to lead
to collective action in the form of social creativity (when status differences are considered legiti-
mate and/or stable) or social competition (when status differences are considered to be illegiti-
mate and/or insecure). Social creativity involves redefining the comparative situation. Social
competition involves attempts to improve the opportunities and status of the group while retain-
ing a distinct group identity. In order to examine the response of ‘folk devils’ to stigmatized iden-
tity, a second coding frame was therefore developed to examine social categorization and
comparison processes and whether there was evidence to suggest that coping strategies pre-
dicted by SIT had been adopted.
Social Representations AnalysisSix core representations were identified: asylum seekers as ‘bad people’ versus ‘good people’,
‘threatening’ versus ‘threatened’ and ‘legitimate’ versus ‘illegitimate’. This is consistent with
Moscovici’s (2001) prediction that, given their genesis in communication, it is likely that every posi-
tive representation will have a negative counterpart. These particular features were identified as
core elements because they provide the overarching meaning of each representation by linking a
set of peripheral elements (Abric, 1996). For example, ‘criminal’, ‘spongers’, ‘ungrateful’ and‘cowardly’ are all ways of representing asylum seekers as ‘bad people’. ‘Bad people’ therefore links
these elements and gives meaning to this representation by indicating how each peripheral
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
6/19
298 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
element is used to represent asylum seekers as sharing negative traits. The central core constitutes
the most stable element of each representation, fulfilling the need for constancy. Peripheral ele-
ments are more flexible, adapting to particular contexts to protect the core (Abric, 1996). Figure 1
shows the pattern of representations across each data set.
All representations appeared in all data sources, although peripheral elements differed accord-ing to source and there was variation in the extent to which focus group participants and indi-
vidual interviewees demonstrated awareness or assimilation of these representations.
Representations in the media sample and focus groups were remarkably similar and predomi-
nantly negative: only two of the broadsheets provided any counter moral panic discourse in the
media, and there was surprisingly little variation in moral panic content in focus groups, despite
sampling to maximize variation in representations.
The following discussion focuses on the negative representations to examine the content of
moral panic discourse. Although each core representation is considered in turn, this is not to sug-
gest that they form distinct entities. Social representations exist within complex networks of rep-
resentations and interact with each other to provide a frame of reference for understanding any
given social object. Consequently, social representations will overlap, with some peripheral ele-
ments performing multiple functions. For example, ‘criminal’ is used not only to position asylum
seekers as ‘bad people’, but also to highlight their illegitimacy and discuss the threat they pose to
the host community.
Asylum Seekers as ‘Bad People’This representation positions asylum seekers as inherently ‘bad’ in terms of personal characteris-
tics. This includes direct references to asylum seekers being bad people, for example, ‘it seems like
we’re getting all the bad the other countries don’t want, we’re getting all the rubbish’ (Gino,1
Rickmansworth), as well as the attribution of negative characteristics, for example, ‘they should
learn English if they want to sponge off us, at least have the decency of speaking the same
language’ (Luke, Basildon).
The representation of asylum seekers as ‘undesirable immigrants’ and ‘criminal’ featured pre-
dominantly in the media sample. Media coverage focused on the need for more deportations and
asylum seekers were differentiated from immigrants who bring positive benefits to the UK. For
example, in the case of a deportation of an American citizen, it was reported: ‘If she had come
here claiming political asylum… leeched off the state with a huge family, this government wouldwelcome her with open arms’ (Duncan, Daily Mirror , 2006).
Focus group participants frequently compared asylum seekers unfavourably to established eth-
nic communities and economic migrants perceived to contribute more to the UK. For example,
participants in Birmingham referred to the Jamaican community as ‘nice people’ who have ‘earned
the money, they’ve put it into the system’ in contrast to asylum seekers who are ‘spoiling it’.
Individual interviewees indicated awareness of this representation, feeling that neither the public
nor the media want asylum seekers in the UK. For example: ‘When they [the media] are talking
about asylum, they try to pushing asylum in right to deport’ (Raman).
Asylum seekers were represented as ‘criminal’ by being directly associated with criminal acts,through references to ‘asylum seekers and criminals’ and by association with illegal immigrants.
Crime dominated media coverage of asylum seekers, focusing primarily on violent crime, making
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
7/19
Pearce and Charman
299
Figure 1. Social representations of asylum seekers across each data set.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
8/19
300 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
this a particularly powerful representation. For example: ‘Killers and rapists flooded on to our
streets because ministers lost control of the asylum system years ago’ (Pascoe-Watson, Sun, 2006).
The representation of asylum seekers as ‘spongers’ also featured prominently in tabloid cover-
age and focus groups. Even the more sympathetic focus group participants who used less inflam-
matory language tended to represent asylum seekers as people who have chosen to come to theUK specifically to utilize the benefits system. For example: ‘I think the NHS and the fact that it is
free is a huge draw, and the council housing, things like that’ (Sarah, Doncaster).
Asylum Seekers as ‘Threatening’Perceived negative traits clearly inform and interact with some representations of threat. However,
what distinguishes ‘threatening’ is that this representation focuses on asylum seekers’ relationship
with and perceived negative impact on the host community, rather than on their personal traits.
Four types of threat were identified: ‘economic threat’, ‘physical threat’, ‘cultural threat’ and
‘uncontrollable threat’.
First, the representation of asylum seekers as an ‘economic threat’ commonly appeared in
media coverage, which focused on burden on resources, costs to the UK taxpayer and perceived
unfairness in the allocation of resources. For example, the Daily Express argued that ‘unbearable
pressure is placed on our public services’ by asylum seekers arriving in the UK via France (Fagge,
2006). Very similar representations appeared in focus groups. In addition, focus group partici-
pants frequently represented asylum seekers as an economic threat in relation to ‘taking our jobs’.
For example:
I suppose really the issues I see are how limited our resources are in the country anyway and I
would imagine that’s what people’s issues are with it, the fact that they may be taking our jobs,
may be taking our houses, they may be taking resources away from National Health. (Gary,
Basildon)
Individual interviewees recognized the representation of asylum seekers as placing a burden on
resources, but emphasized that asylum seekers do not choose to receive benefits and suggested
they would much rather work. For example:
They always say ‘they are a burden on our system’ and honestly we might be a burden on asystem but we didn’t choose this… we may be a burden on the society but at least give us a
work permit in order to pay tax and don’t be a burden on society. (Ali)
Second, the representation of asylum seekers as a ‘physical threat’ focused on the association
with terrorism and violent crime. The idea that terrorists are using the asylum system to enter the
UK was a recurrent theme in media coverage. For example: ‘Terrorists able to commit mass
slaughter are using our lax asylum and immigration system to plot outrages, the Home Secretary
warned yesterday’ (Whitehead, Daily Express, 2006a).
Representations of asylum seekers as a ‘physical threat’ in focus groups also centred on per-ceived links to terrorism and violent crime, in particular gang violence and the threat this poses to
UK citizens. For example:
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
9/19
Pearce and Charman
301
The knife people are Somalians. They won’t fight because they can’t, so they’ll stab you and
that’s where it comes from and you go out to Rayners Lane and that, you’ll see them all over
the place and they’ll knife you. (Paul, Rickmansworth)
A small minority of individual interviewees had assimilated the representation of asylum seekersas a ‘physical threat’. For example, Bikila attributed public hostility towards asylum seekers to ‘crimes
increasing … and in some areas there are gangsters on the road, with a knife killing each other’.
However, this representation was far more frequently recognized but contested. For example: ‘Even
if I’m an asylum seeker in this country I did not come here to violate nobody you know. I come to
treat people the right way possible’ (Amadou).
Third, in the media sample, the representation of asylum seekers as a ‘cultural threat’ mostly
focused on concerns regarding lack of integration and national identity threat. For example: ‘As
millions stream into the country, the very concepts of nationhood and citizenship have been
destroyed’ (Fagge, Daily Express, 2006).
However, this representation featured much more prominently in focus groups, where cultural
threat was also strongly associated with religious difference. For example:
Well I think the biggest thing is religion, because that starts all issues … people come across
here and build their own churches and create their own little world and I think they have to
remember that they are on British soil … They should accept, if they’re accepted to come into
the country with the benefits that we’re giving them they should accept our culture. (Michaela,
Nottingham)
Fourth, the representation of asylum seekers as an ‘uncontrollable threat’ involved two ele-
ments: ‘overwhelming threat’ (in relation to numbers arriving) and ‘invisible threat’ (in terms of
‘sneaking in’ and then ‘disappearing’). The media drew upon metaphors like ‘floods’, ‘tides’ and
‘armies’ to describe asylum seekers entering the UK, and the backlog of applications was routinely
described as a ‘mountain’. Asylum seekers were also frequently described as ‘sneaking in’ to the
UK undetected. For example: ‘Many of the refugees are thought to have slipped through customs
in Dover and vanished … Critics have repeatedly warned that Labour’s immigration chaos has left
Britain with a “porous border” and a magnet for illegals across the world’ (Sparks, Daily Express,
2006).
Focus groups produced very similar representations to the media sample and also focused onthe overwhelming and invisible threat posed by asylum seekers. For example: ‘A lot of them come
over and disappear so who knows where they are?’ (Mike, Doncaster).
As with the media, the sense of threat attached to the idea of asylum seekers ‘disappearing’
was linked to the assumption that only unfounded claims will be rejected. For example:
If you’ve been rejected then there’s obviously a reason … and therefore you should go through
other means and not sort of stay around here flying under the wire and that’s what I object
to, because you don’t know what they’re doing … they could be doing anything (Jeanne,
London).
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
10/19
302 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
Asylum Seekers as ‘Illegitimate’As with ‘threatening’, this representation overlaps with and amplifies the representation of asylum
seekers as ‘bad people’. For example, representing asylum seekers as ‘spongers’ and ‘criminal’
clearly positions them as ‘illegitimate’. However, asylum seekers are also represented as ‘illegiti-
mate’ in terms of being economic migrants coming to the UK to flee poverty and find work, andthis does not necessarily position them as ‘bad people’. In fact, some focus group participants
expressed empathy for individuals in this position.
The representation of asylum seekers as illegitimate featured frequently in the media sample,
particularly in the tabloid press. There was also a tendency to draw comparisons between ‘genu-
ine’ refugees and ‘failed’ asylum seekers. For example:
Shadow immigration minister Damian Green, who unearthed the figures, said: ‘No wonder
there are more than 250,000 failed asylum seekers in this country. This failure slows down the
system even further, which not only costs the taxpayer money but is also unfair on the genuinerefugee.’ (Whitehead, Daily Express, 2006b)
This was also one of the most common representations in focus groups, who contrasted asy-
lum seekers with refugees rather than recognizing them as refugees at an earlier stage in the
application process. For example: ‘An asylum seeker is someone who puts themselves up whereas
a refugee is someone who like you know had to be helped out, which is a bit different’ (Gary,
Basildon).
Focus group participants tended to support the principle of asylum, but nevertheless perceived
the majority of asylum seekers as ‘not genuine’. For example: ‘I haven’t got a problem with any-
body coming to this country who is genuinely seeking asylum … but I think it’s very important that
process is managed, because I think there’s a general feeling that it’s abused’ (Lisa, Nottingham).
The Spread and Transformation of Moral Panic DiscourseAs noted, the negative representations identified in this analysis were remarkably similar in con-
tent and were easily reproduced, even by those who had not assimilated them. It is likely these
representations originated in the media, as they were reproduced in focus groups by participants
with no direct experience of asylum seekers or alternative sources of information. Furthermore,
tabloid terminology such as ‘illegal asylum seekers’ and ‘spongers’ was reproduced, regardless ofwhether participants reportedly read these publications. The media was also directly cited to sup-
port negative arguments and misleading media reporting was reproduced. For example, consist-
ent with previous research (see Pearce and Stockdale, 2009), inaccurate media reports that France
plays host to few asylum seekers were often drawn upon to support the argument that ‘all’ or
‘most’ asylum seekers come to the UK.
Negative media representations that converged with existing opinion or experience were par-
ticularly powerful. For example, focus group participants living in social housing who were con-
cerned about asylum seekers being housed in similar properties were particularly receptive to
tabloid media representations of asylum seekers as ‘spongers’. Although it was not possible toestablish whether it was through media influence or the selection of newspapers which supported
their existing views, there was evidence to support a link between media consumption and host
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
11/19
Pearce and Charman
303
representations of asylum seekers. For example, individuals who read the Guardian or the
Independent were aware of negative representations but had not assimilated them. This demon-
strates the role of the media in facilitating and proliferating moral panic discourse and indicates
the power and spread of negative representations.
This analysis also demonstrated that core representations are resistant to change. For example,following a Press Complaints Commission (2003) guidance note regarding the use of inaccurate
terminology, the media moved away from referring to ‘illegal asylum seekers’, replacing this ter-
minology with ‘failed asylum seekers’. Although this is an ostensibly less negative term, through
repeatedly associating ‘asylum seeker’ with failed applications, media coverage continues to rep-
resent asylum seekers as ‘illegitimate’ and the core representation therefore remains unchanged.
Focus group participants also demonstrated this tendency through assimilating contrary informa-
tion without altering their core representations. For example, when discovering that asylum seek-
ers were unable to work, one participant moved from representing them as ‘spongers’ to
interpreting this as an explanation for why they were ‘criminals’. In this way the new information
was assimilated without threatening the core representation of asylum seekers as ‘bad people’.
Although core elements are resistant to change, social representations have their genesis in
communication and are therefore subject to transformation. This can be seen in the development
of representations in the process of communication – for example, the way that ‘economic threat’
was expanded to include ‘taking our jobs’ when it entered the public domain – and also in the
transformation of representations across time and in association with other representations. For
example, the representation of ‘asylum seeker’ has been both informed and transformed by rep-
resentations of ‘terrorist’ and ‘Muslim’.
Social Identity Analysis – Focus GroupsSocial Categorization and ComparisonThere was good evidence from focus groups to support both in-group and out-group social cat-
egorization and social comparison processes. This is important in establishing the role that inter-
group dynamics play in underpinning receptivity to moral panic discourse. In every focus group,
asylum seekers were categorized as a distinct group from the host community, with group bound-
aries drawn on the basis of cultural differences. Language and religion were the most common
distinguishing factors identified. For example:
I think the major thing is the language. They don’t learn the language. I’m quite happy for
someone to come over here, willing to learn the language, live by our rules, yeah if they want
to worship someone else, fine, I am not religious at all so I couldn’t give a monkeys who you
worship, but this country is a Christian country, it has been for nearly a thousand years and
maybe even earlier, certainly for a thousand years and then for these communities to try and
turn it into a Muslim state, I’ll pick on Muslims because they’re the flavour of the month [others
laugh] but they seem to be the biggest offenders of trying to push their law and their religion
onto other cultures where they have no tolerance of any other culture or religion at all and
that’s what’s causing the biggest problem is the religion … that’s my biggest gripe and thelanguage, not learning English. (Luke, Basildon)
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
12/19
304 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
Such social comparison processes involved the selective accentuation of intergroup differences
that favoured the in-group. For example, the host community were characterized as hard-working
people with ‘good standards’ in relation to politeness and cleanliness in contrast with untidy, lazy
asylum seekers: ‘They set up their own culture and they do things necessarily which we would find
unacceptable, you know leave trash, make a mess of the countryside, don’t respect our laws’(Michaela, Nottingham).
There was also evidence for the reproduction of negative stereotypes such as ‘spongers’ and
‘illegal asylum seekers’, and most focus group participants treated ‘asylum seekers’ as a homog-
enous group, talking about what ‘they’ do, rather than differentiating them as individuals. For
example: ‘If they’re going to come into this country they must actually act like we do and keeping
places tidy and live like we do instead of like they want to live in their own country’ (Dennis,
Birmingham).
Social Belief StructuresThe majority of focus group participants described group boundaries as impermeable, arguing
that it was not possible for asylum seekers to become British. For example, Maria (London) com-
mented ‘you can’t become British you just are’. Cultural differences were described as a primary
barrier to becoming British and consequently focus group participants tended to associate
‘Britishness’ with being born and raised in the UK. For example: ‘I don’t think the first generation
could [become British]. I think you’ve got to look at the second or third generation’ (Ken,
Rickmansworth).
Interestingly, these findings indicate that, contrary to the expectations of SIT, the perception of
permeable group boundaries did not predict negative responses to asylum seekers. Furthermore,
rather than fuelling identity threat, permeable boundaries were considered desirable. Focus group
participants seemed less concerned about social mobility than the idea that asylum seekers were
living in the UK as a separate group that does not wish to be assimilated, and this view was also
expressed by those who were generally more positive about asylum seekers. For example:
I think because that goes back to the kind of like willingness of the asylum seeker actually
wanting to integrate or the opposite which actually causes the problems where they actually
would appear if there are massive, particular areas, who don’t want to integrate, so why do
you actually come here in the first place? (David, Nottingham)
Unsurprisingly, given the amount of hostility expressed towards asylum seekers, there was an
overwhelming impression that status differences were for the main part considered to be legiti-
mate, with only one focus group participant offering a dissenting voice. The majority view was
that asylum seekers were unfairly advantaged in relation to the host community and that their
treatment should be more in accordance with that of a lower status group. For example:
They’re coming over here to better conditions so horrible as it may sound, putting two kids into
a two bedroom flat so the adult’s got a room, that two kids have got another, that’s notdestroying their human rights, that’s giving them more of a life than what they had at home …
straight away the government’s funding them so this is where the problems kick in. So straight
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
13/19
Pearce and Charman
305
away I think they’re entitled to about thirty pound a week, whatever, the same as a British
person who has been here, they’re entitled to like an equal amount. (Sharon, London)
Those who indicated most hostility towards asylum seekers also tended to highlight the legiti-
macy of status differences and expressed concerns that not enough distinction was made betweenthe groups in terms of relative privileges. This is consistent with the predictions of SIT.
Social Identity Analysis – Individual InterviewsSocial Categorization and ComparisonThere was variation in the extent to which individual interviewees identified as ‘asylum seekers’
and their reasons for doing so. Some did so because of shared experiences and the support pro-
vided by other asylum seekers. For example: ‘If something bad happening for asylum seeker …
they have a good contact between them. If anyone need help, they helping’ (Raman).
Others felt they had no choice but to identify as ‘asylum seekers’ due to restrictions imposed
upon individuals who seek asylum in the UK. Not being allowed to work or study was described
as having a detrimental impact, not only financially but also in terms of the lack of opportunity for
alternative identifications. For example:
I just want to get a work permit to start work and to show that I can be a beneficial member
of society. I can be like other people be. I can show that I’m not a criminal, I’m not asylum
seeker, I’m not a sponger, I am just, I am a person … Unfortunately I cannot live in my country,
I want to live here, but we never have given a chance to show ourself. There is no any way even
to show, to express ourself, so how people know what’s inside you. (Ali)
Interviewees were also aware of being identified by others as ‘asylum seekers’ regardless of
how they identified themselves. For example:
You come to realize that you are this label, so one must be really, really strong to keep saying to
oneself that well I am not this label, this is a temporary thing but when you keep getting bom-
barded by the way you are treated on the basis of this label yeah you identify and I did identify
with that label and I did find it very dispowering, I found it really, really dispowering. (Babir)
Those who did not identify as ‘asylum seekers’ tended to see it as a label that is applied to a
disparate group of people, who at best have nothing in common and at worst come from oppos-
ing sides of conflicts. They felt no different from anyone else and considered themselves as indi-
viduals. For example: ‘It’s just a name. So an individual, the way you were brought up and the way
you are is you … but asylum is just a name’ (Mary).
All interviewees had at some point experienced host responses in terms consistent with being
categorized as an out-group. For example:
British people, unfortunately, not all of them but mostly the majority, once they define you withthat label they always see you with that label and there is always a barrier between you and
them because you are an asylum seeker. (Amin)
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
14/19
306 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
All interviewees also felt the UK media failed to differentiate between individuals categorized
as ‘asylum seekers’ and the majority of media coverage, particularly the tabloid press, was hostile,
drawing on negative stereotypes of asylum seekers as ‘criminals’ and ‘spongers’. Further, that the
media generalized negative behaviour of individuals to all group members. For example:
If I take one example, I think it was last year here in Sheffield area, I’m not sure asylum seeker
what he did wrong … he came to the court and he’s been charged … after few days when they
published in the newspaper and people they read it, and after few days another English man
he write this article it said ‘kick asylum seeker out’. Why you kick asylum seeker? … We are
agree asylum seeker, some of asylum seeker, they did something wrong, but if we check the
prison it’s not just asylum seeker there. There are also many English people there and when the
English people they did something wrong the English they say ‘kick English out’? (Nozer)
As a consequence of negative media stereotyping, some felt ‘asylum seeker’ had become a
stigmatized social identity. For example, Ali suggested ‘asylum seeker is now a figure of hate’.
However, these interviews also revealed the complexity of categorization processes and that dif-
ferent social identities may overlap. For example, several interviewees felt the media and the host
community conflate ‘asylum seeker’ with being Muslim: ‘Religion and asylum seeker in this coun-
try are the same people, that’s the way people judge people. They think “ok they come here and
seek asylum and they are Muslims”. They do that in the papers all the time’ (Amadou).
These interviews also suggest that other social categorizations may have equal or more influ-
ence on interactions between ‘asylum seekers’ and the host community. For example, being iden-
tified as Muslim and Middle Eastern was described by many interviewees as being more problematic
than simply being identified as an asylum seeker. When asked whether he would be more con-
cerned about people knowing where he was from or knowing he was an asylum seeker Ali
responded: ‘First of all I’m more concerned about both to be honest, but … I’m more concerned
to say, I’m more avoid to say I’m Iraqi rather than asylum seeker’ (Ali).
Other interviewees indicated that skin colour was a key issue. For example:
I’m from Turkey and there are more hostile attitudes against African and Asian and Arabs asy-
lum seekers I can say, because I read a lot of news about asylum seekers who has AIDS or some
other illness which they blame them … the opinion against Asian, Arab and then African,
especially African people is more hostile … the colour is a very important issue as well. If yourskin colour is whiter than others you feel more secure and then you despise other. (Adil)
There was therefore evidence from all interviews to indicate that host and media responses
were experienced in terms consistent with social categorization and comparison processes pre-
dicted by SIT. However, their social identity as ‘asylum seekers’ was not the only or necessarily the
most important factor in interviewees’ interactions with members of the host community.
Coping With Stigmatized IdentityThere was evidence that individuals who are categorized as ‘asylum seekers’ adopt a variety ofstrategies for coping with stigmatized group membership, at both an individual and group level.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
15/19
Pearce and Charman
307
For some interviewees, successful integration with the host community led to the perception of
permeable barriers and the adoption of social mobility strategies. For example:
It’s different between me and somebody else who’s sitting there and not trying to study any-
thing, to not get involved with the news or the community, don’t socialise with other people… when you socialise with the community you are in and you more involved with these people
that we are living with you forget about what you are actually and you forget that you are
asylum seekers because you are more involved with other people than asylum seekers. (Hawraz)
For others, disidentification was not due to successful integration, but because they had assimi-
lated negative representations of ‘asylum seekers’ but did not feel that these characteristics
applied to themselves. For these individuals a social mobility strategy was only partially successful
as there was tension between this lack of identification and the recognition that they may be
identified in this way by others. For example:
I don’t care what they say about asylum seekers because I know that I’m different and I don’t
want, I don’t even like to be an asylum seeker, but situation brings you here, makes you
become an asylum seeker, you don’t have a choice … I don’t tell people I’m an asylum seeker,
I don’t know why I just feel very, very different, like if you tell someone you’re an asylum seeker
they treat you different, you cannot socialise very well with them. (Ndulu)
Group-level strategies largely focused on contesting negative representations with a view to
re-evaluating what it means to be an ‘asylum seeker’, through representing asylum seekers as
law-abiding and as people who make a large economic and cultural contribution to the UK. For
example: ‘We are a ready workforce to contribute to the economy. A lot of them are doctors,
engineers you know’ (Amin).
There was also evidence to suggest that some participants adopted social change strategies,
for example by drawing attention to the ways in which ‘asylum seekers’ are different, but equal:
I think we shouldn’t insist on being integrated you know, because I have my kind of food, you
have your kind of food, you might happen to like mine and I might happen to like yours which
is great when it happens, but apart from that we are just different, by definition or by back-
ground or by whatever so it is just mutual respect and peaceful co-existence really with othergroups. (Lilith)
These interviews demonstrated limits to social change strategies available to a group which is
inherently heterogeneous. For example, there was no evidence for the use of social creativity
strategies in which a new dimension for comparison was adopted as this would involve highlight-
ing shared group features.
Discussion and ConclusionThis article presented the results of a study designed to examine whether a social psychologicalapproach to moral panic could be used to (a) theorize the content as well as process of moral
panic, and (b) understand the cause and impact of this response.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
16/19
308 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
SRT was used to examine the content of moral panic discourse. It proved particularly useful in
identifying commonalities and differences in the way representations were used by the media,
host community, and individuals who have sought refuge in the UK. It also mapped the spread
and transformation of social representations, demonstrating the widespread dispersal of moral
panic discourses about asylum seekers, and the way these develop as they enter the publicdomain. SRT enabled examination of stable core elements of representations and more context-
dependent peripheral elements, resulting in a more nuanced analysis than would be provided by
a content analysis which just identified key themes.
Mapping the social representations of asylum seekers also established the representational
context in which ‘folk devils’ negotiate their identities. This highlighted factors that delimit possi-
bilities for identity construction, as well as the role played by moral panic discourses in maintaining
particular patterns of social relations. SIT was integrated into this analysis to examine intergroup
processes that may help explain the cause and impact of moral panic. Focus group results sup-
ported SIT predictions regarding the importance of intergroup dynamics in public receptivity to
moral panic discourse, but concern and hostility were not solely attributable to categorization and
comparison processes.
Material as well as psychological factors contributed to experience of threat, with concerns
about economic impact and perceived unfair distribution of resources featuring frequently in
focus group discussions. However, although competition for resources contributed to hostility –
particularly among participants who were on benefits or working in industries affected by foreign
labour – there was no evidence for direct negative economic experiences with asylum seekers.
Furthermore, concern about the perceived negative impact of ‘asylum seekers’ on British identity
and culture played a key role in hostility, further underlining the importance of identity concerns
in a moral panic response.
This study also revealed some challenges in applying SIT to moral panics. Firstly, a moral panic
analysis focuses on a relationship between two groups: those who are doing the panicking and
the ‘folk devils’. However, SIT recognizes that individuals have multiple identities and there is no
set form of social categorization in which intergroup relations are invariable across all contexts
(Reicher, 2004). Furthermore, categories are socially not individually determined, so may be
imposed as well as chosen. For example, ‘asylum seeker’ is a complex identity, conferred by others
to a heterogeneous group with no obvious shared features. It is also, at least technically, a tem-
porary identity.
As this label is applied to individuals who are, for the most part, ethnically and culturally differ-ent from the host community, it is also very difficult to separate out the impact of their status as
‘folk devils’ from other racial and religious identities. For example, when asked about their experi-
ences as ‘asylum seekers’, it was common for individual interviewees to respond with answers
about their experiences as Kurds, Muslims or Black Africans. Similarly, focus group participants
used ‘asylum seeker’ to refer to a variety of social identity groups, including economic migrants
from EU Accession States, as well as well-established ethnic communities in the UK.
Therefore, the idea that we can deal with the implications of moral panic on the basis of one
single label is likely to be an oversimplification, and there is more work to be done to establish
the impact of moral panic on ‘folk devils’ in situations where a number of different stigmatizedidentities are involved. Despite this, it was clear that interviewees felt that ‘asylum seeker’ was a
particularly negative label and consequently many sought to hide or reject this identity. However,
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
17/19
Pearce and Charman
309
they were also aware that they were likely to be identified as ‘asylum seekers’ and associated
with the negative stereotypes this entails, regardless of their self-definition. This clearly had a
negative impact in terms of their self-esteem and their ability to form relationships, particularly
with members of the host community.
Secondly, despite the fact that focus group responses were consistent with intergroup pro-cesses predicted by SIT, this approach could not predict the circumstances in which participants
were more or less hostile towards asylum seekers. Furthermore, while intergroup boundaries were
considered initially impermeable, focus group participants were keen that successful asylum appli-
cants should be assimilated into the host community, adopting their values and cultural practices
to become part of the in-group. This suggests that in practice there may not be a straightforward
dichotomy in social belief structures. Similarly, individual interviewees did not treat intergroup
boundaries as strictly permeable or impermeable, but described them as permeable in some con-
texts but not others. Further research is therefore required to explore the complexities of these
boundaries and assess the reasons for lack of predictive validity with regard to this aspect of
intergroup relations.
While it is important to recognize the limitations with this approach and that, as with previous
models, it will not be able to provide a universal explanation for moral panic, this analysis never-
theless demonstrates the potential for social psychological theory to extend the explanatory value
of moral panic. The use of a social psychological perspective provides an opportunity to investi-
gate the psychological impact of asymmetric power relations on those without access to cultural
capital, enhancing the critical edge of moral panic and increasing the likelihood that moral panic
research can achieve Cohen’s (2002) aim of exposing social injustice.
Note1. To preserve the anonymity of participants, all names have been changed. Selected quotations are used for
illustrative purposes.
ReferencesAbric, J.C. (1996) Specific processes of social representations. Papers on Social Representations 5(1): 77–80.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research
1(3): 385–405.
Barclay, A., Bowes, A., Ferguson, I., Sim, D., Valenti, M., Fard, S. and MacIntosh, S. (2003) Asylum Seekers
in Scotland . Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/ social/asis-00.asp (accessed 23 May 2011).
Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(2): 163–186.
Berkeley, R., Khan, D. and Ambikaipaker, M. (2006) What’s New About New Immigrants in Twenty-First Cen-
tury Britain? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: www.runnymeadetrust.org/publications/
pdfs/what is new about new immigrants.pdf (accessed 23 May 2007).
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3:
77–101.
Clarke, S. and Garner, S. (2005) Identity, Home and Asylum: A Psycho-Social Perspective. A working paper.
Available at: www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/pdf/identity_home_asylum.pdf (accessed 23 May
2011).Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mods and Rockers. London: Granada Publishing
Ltd.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
18/19
310 CRIME MEDIA CULTURE 7(3)
Cohen, S. (2002) Moral panics as cultural politics: Introduction to Third Edition. In: Folk Devils and Moral Pan-
ics: The Creation of Mods and Rockers (3rd ed.). London: Routledge, vii–xxxvii.
Critcher, C. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Critcher, C. (2006) Introduction: More questions than answers. In: Critcher, C. (Ed.) Critical Readings: Moral
Panics and the Media. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 1–4.
Critcher, C. (2008) Moral panic analysis: Past, present and future. Sociology Compass 2(4): 1127–1144.deYoung, M. (1998) Another look at moral panics: The case of satanic day care centers. Deviant Behavior
19: 1–22.
Duncan, J.H. (2006) Letters: To the point. Daily Mirror , 23 January.
Fagge, N. (2006) Migrant riot. Daily Express, 4 March.
Finney, N. (2005) Key Issues Navigation Guide: Public Opinion on Asylum and Refugee Issues. London: ICAR.
Available at: www.icar.org.uk (accessed 23 May 2011).
Finney, N. and Robinson, V. (2007) Local press re-presentation and contestation of national discourses on asy-
lum seeker dispersal. CSSR Working Paper. Available at: www.ccsr.ac.uk/publications/working/2007-01.
pdf (accessed 5 June 2007).
Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Gaskell, G. (2000) Individual and group interviewing. In: Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (Eds.) QualitativeResearching with Text, Image and Sound . London: Sage Publications Ltd, 38–56.
Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M.W. (2000) Towards public accountability: Beyond sampling, reliability and validity.
In: Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (Eds.) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound . London: Sage
Publications Ltd, 336–350.
Goode, E. (2000) No need to panic? A bumper crop of books on moral panics. Sociological Forum 15(3):
543–552.
Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994) Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.
Grillo, R. (2005) ‘Saltdean can’t cope’: Protests against asylum-seekers in an English seaside suburb. Ethnic
and Racial Studies 28(2): 235–260.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State,and Law and Order . London: Macmillan.
Hier, S.P. (2003) Risk and panic in late modernity: Implications of the converging sites of social anxiety. British
Journal of Sociology 54(1): 3–20.
ICAR (2004) Media Image, Community Impact: Assessing the Impact of Media and Political Images of Refu-
gees and Asylum Seekers on Community Relations in London. Report of a pilot research study commis-
sioned by the Mayor of London. London: ICAR, King’s College.
Kushner, T. (2003) Meaning nothing but good: Ethics, history and asylum-seeker phobia in Britain. Patterns
of Prejudice 37(3): 257–276.
Lewis, M. (2005) Asylum: Understanding Public Attitudes. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
McCorckle, R.C. and Miethe, T.D. (1998) The political and organisational response to gangs: An examination
of a ‘moral panic’ in Nevada. Justice Quarterly 15(1): 41–64.Moloney, G. and Walker, I. (2007) Introduction. In: Moloney, G. and Walker, I. (Eds.) Social Representations
and Identity: Content, Process and Power . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–8.
Moscovici, S. (1963) Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology 14: 231–260.
Moscovici, S. (2001) Why a theory of social representations? In: Deaux, K. and Philogene, G. (Eds.) Represen-
tations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 8–35.
Moscovici, S. (2008 [1961/1976]) Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public . David Macey (Trans.). Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Pascoe-Watson, G. (2006) Sheer incompetence – Labour’s Mayday meltown. Sun, 1 May, p.2.
Pearce, J.M. (2010) Asylum seekers in the UK: A social psychological understanding of a moral panic. Unpub-
lished doctoral thesis, London Metropolitan University, London.
Pearce, J.M. and Stockdale, J.E. (2009) UK responses to the asylum issue: A comparison of lay and expertviews. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 19(2): 142–155.
at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 11, 2015cmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/
-
8/9/2019 A Psycosociological Apprach to Moral Panic
19/19
Pearce and Charman
311
Press Complaints Commission (2003) Guidance Notes on Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Available at: http://
www.pcc.org.uk/advice/editorials-detail.html?article=OTE= (accessed 23 May 2011).
Reicher, S. (2004) The context of social identity: Domination, resistance and change. Political Psychology
25(6): 921–945.
Reynolds, K.J. and Turner, J.C. (2001) Prejudice as a group process: The role of social identity. In: Augoustinos, M.
and Reynolds, KJ. (Eds.) Understanding Prejudice, Racism and Social Conflict . London: Sage PublicationsLtd, 159–178.
Robinson, V. (2003) Redefining the ‘problem’ and challenging the assumptions. In: Robinson, V., Andersson, R.
and Musterd, S. (Eds.) Spreading the ‘Burden’? A Review of Policies to Disperse Asylum Seekers and
Refugees. Bristol: Policy Press, 159–178.
St Cyr, J. (2003) The folk devil reacts: Gangs and moral panics. Criminal Justice Review 28(1): 26–46.
Sparks, R. (1995) Entertaining the crisis: Television and moral enterprise. In: Kidd-Hewitt, D. and Osborne, R.
(Eds.) Crime and Media: The Postmodern Spectacle. London: Pluto Press, 49–66.
Sparks, I. (2006) Jailed: Gang that smuggled 1,000 migrants into UK. Daily Express, 21 January.
Tajfel, H. (1978) The Social Psychology of Minorities. Report No. 38 for Minority Rights Group.
Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Thompson, K. (1998) Moral Panics. London: Routledge.
Turner, J.C. (1999) Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In:
Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, B. (Eds.) Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content . Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 6–34.
Ungar, S. (2001) Moral panic versus the risk society: the implications of the changing sites of social anxiety.
British Journal of Sociology 52(2): 271–291.
Warr, D.J. (2005) ‘It was fun but we don’t usually talk about these things’: Analyzing sociable interaction in
focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry 11(2): 200–225.
Whitehead, T. (2006a) Reid: Terrorists here have means of mass destruction. Daily Express, 10 August.
Whitehead, T. (2006b) New loophole for missing migrants. Daily Express, 2 October.