a psycosociological apprach to moral panic

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/


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


http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/http://cmc.sagepub.com/


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.




4/19


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.




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




6/19


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




7/19

Pearce and Charman

299

Figure 1. Social representations of asylum seekers across each data set.




8/19


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:




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).




10/19


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




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)




12/19


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




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)




14/19


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.




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.




16/19


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,




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.




18/19


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.




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.

a psycosociological apprach to moral panic

Documents