Podcast appearances and mentions of steve reicher

In this episode of Better Thinking, Nesh Nikolic speaks with Professor Alex Haslam about identity leadership and its implications in social and organisational settings. Alex Haslam is Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology and Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland. His research focuses on the study of group and identity processes in organizational, social, and clinical contexts. Together with colleagues, Alex has written and edited 15 books and published over 300 peer-reviewed articles on these topics. His most recent books are The New Psychology of Health: Unlocking the Social Cure (with Catherine Haslam, Jolanda Jetten, Tegan Cruwys and Genvieve Dingle, Routledge, 2018),The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power (2nd Ed. with Stephen Reicher & Michael Platow, Psychology Press, 2020), and Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies (2nd Ed. with Joanne Smith, Sage, 2017). Alex is a former Chief Editor of the European Journal of Social Psychology and currently Associate Editor of The Leadership Quarterly. In 2005 he won the European Association of Social Psychology's Kurt Lewin Medal for outstanding scientific contribution; in 2013 he won the International Leadership Association's Outstanding Leadership Book Award for The New Psychology of Leadership (with Steve Reicher and Michael Platow); in 2016 he won the British Psychology Society Presidents' Award for distinguished contributions to psychological knowledge; in 2017 he won the International Society for Political Psychology's Sanford Prize for distinguished contributions to political psychology, and the Australian Psychological Society's Workplace Excellence Award for Leadership Development (with Nik Steffens & Kim Peters); in 2018 he won the Australian Psychological Society's Award for Distinguished Contribution to Psychological Science. In 2019 and 2020 Alex was recognised by Publons as a highly-cited cross field researcher. In 2022 he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia "for significant service to higher education, particuarly psychology, through research and mentoring". Episode link at https://neshnikolic.com/podcast/alex-haslamSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Millions of us, across the world, are subject to curfews, stay-at-home orders and lockdowns but what makes us stick to the rules, bend them or ignore them altogether? Claudia Hammond and her expert panel of guests consider the psychology of following the rules. Leading social psychologists share research which show that higher levels of trust in leadership translates to more pandemic guidance followed. A sense of “We” not “I”, a shared identity, makes a difference too, as well as identification with the whole of humankind, not just your immediate family. But there is danger too, from a “narrative of blame”, where individuals are demonised if they break the rules. Such an approach, Claudia hears, is corrosive to the all-important sense of shared identity and alienates some groups, while making others complacent. Also in the programme, what impact can rapid “have you got it” antigen tests which give results in minutes, rather than days, have on the virus? Claudia hears from the Cameroon in Central, West Africa, one of the first countries in the world to try mass testing using these rapid diagnostic tests. And she talks to scientists at the forefront of evaluating and modelling how their use could affect transmission of the virus, and daily life for all of us, until a vaccine is available. This month, Claudia’s panel of specialists answers BBC World Service listeners’ questions and includes Professor Michael Mina, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in USA, Dr Margaret Harris, from the World Health Organisation in Geneva, Switzerland, Steve Reicher, Professor of Social Psychology at St Andrews University in Scotland, Professor Rolf Van Dick, social psychologist and Vice President of the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany and Dr Jilian Sacks, senior scientific officer for Pandemic Preparedness for FIND, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva.

British social psychologist Steve Reicher believes that all social change happens through the collective. Human beings all over the planet endured a serious infringement of their private rights when governments made the decision to lock down amid the COVID-19 crisis. For the most part, there was consensus that this tough decision was correct. But how was that consensus established?

Ask a number of influential social scientists who in turn influenced them, and you’d likely get a blue-ribbon primer on the classics in social science. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination. Ernest Becker’s The Denial of Death. Irving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Emile Durkheim’s Suicide. Michel Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge. During the recording of every Social Science Bites podcast, the guest has been asked the following: Which piece of social science research has most inspired or most influenced you? And now, in honor of the 50th Bites podcast to air, journalist and interviewer David Edmonds has compiled those responses into three collections. This last of the three appears here, with answers presented alphabetically from Toby Miller to Linda Woodhead. “I remember as a graduate student reading classics in epidemiology and sociology and feeling like a kid in the candy store,” recalls David Stuckler, now a University of Oxford sociologist, before namedropping? Durkheim. Several of the guests gently railed at the request to name just one influence. “There isn’t one,” starts Mirca Madianou, a communications expert at Goldsmiths, University of London. “There may have been different books at different times of my formation.” Social psychologist Steve Reicher said he instead liked the idea of desert Island books, which give multiple bites of this particular apple, and then named several influences, including E.P. Thompson’s The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century and Natalie Davis’s The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France, which he describes as “beautiful and rich depictions of patterns of social behavior.” “I’m unprepared to answer this!” exclaims behavioral economist and Nobel laureate Robert Shiller before he cites Hersh Shefrin and Richard Thaler’s work that pioneered the connection between neuroscience and eEconomics. Sometimes, though, the answer comes instantly. “Not a day that I don’t think about him or talk about him to somebody,” said Lawrence Sherman of Austin Bradford Hill, an economist whose work evaluating the use of streptomycin in treating tuberculosis created the template for randomized controlled trials.

In popular imagination, being in a crowd makes people scary and irrational. But is this true? In this edition of Analysis, David Edmonds asks social psychologists - including a leading expert on groups, Steve Reicher - about the psychology of crowds. This is far more than merely a theoretical matter. It has profound implications for how we police crowds.

It's part of contemporary life we experience but are ashamed to discuss. But Nihal Arthanayake wants to talk it: about the things that are left unsaid. The empty chair next to a person from an ethnic minority on a packed bus or train. That anxious glance, or downright hostile gaze. Nihal hears from people from around Britain about how the threat of terrorist attacks is making us all frightened of each other's shadows; charting the emotional landscape of Britain at a time of heightened anxiety and distrust. Olaoluwa Opebiyi was removed from a plane by armed police after a fellow passenger reported him to cabin crew for acting suspiciously. Karan Chadda shaved off his hipster beard when people started avoiding him. Tomiwa Folounso tells us that she feels guilty for being wary of young Asian men, when she too has experienced prejudice in the past. How do manage these fears? Some of the people we spoke with in this programme have asked to remain anonymous, but we'll hear from Steve Reicher, a Professor of Social Psychology at St Andrews University and Les Back, Professor of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London. We join writer Iain Sinclair as he takes Nihal on a walk through history around the City of London. Nihal also speaks with Robin Goodwin from Warwick University who has been measuring people's responses to terrorist attacks, from 9/11 right up until the November attacks in Paris in 2015. Is terrorism changing the way we relate to each other? Producer: Caitlin Smith.

Since the Holocaust, social psychologists have asked: Why do people succumb to evil? Theories point to peer pressure and the power of conformity. But Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher reject the idea that people become automatons in a group. Their mock-prison study reveals something more complex about the ways individuals sign on to a brutal agenda.

Riots started in Tottenham in London on August 6th this year and spread to 35 different locations across the Capital and towns and cities across England, including Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and Nottingham. Parliament was recalled and there was a rapidly growing consensus among politicians and the media, that the riots were the result of pure criminality. The riots were criminal, the rioters were criminals and their behaviour was motivated by criminality. A popular explanation for the cause came down to "mob mentality", that in the heat of the moment, individuals lose their identity and act emotionally and irrationally, with little sense of self. But three months after the riots, two psychologists of international reputation, Steve Reicher and Clifford Stott, both experts in crowd behaviour and crowd psychology, are challenging that interpretation in a new e-book, "Mad Mobs and Englishmen". They say that not only is the criminality consensus wrong, but it's also dangerous. Claudia speaks to Professor Reicher, about what their research uncovered. "Anchoring" and the Minimum Payments on Credit Cards: The British have the second highest use of credit cards in the world; only Americans make greater use of their flexible friends. And in the UK, our cards are loaded with debt. The minimum payment printed, by law, on the bottom of the monthly bill, is supposed to stop us getting into further debt by ensuring that we always pay off at least some of the balance every month. But new research by Professor Neil Stewart from the University of Warwick has discovered that the minimum payment could be having the opposite effect. Because of the impact of a well-established psychological effect called "anchoring", it appears that simply reading the suggested minimum payment makes us pay off less of the debt that we would otherwise have done. Counterintuitive ? Yes. Bullying and Borderline Personality Disorder: The links between childhood bullying and mental health problems in later life are well established, and new research suggests that the impact could also include increased rates of Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is quite rare and little is known about its causes, but it's a condition which can feature emotional instability, impulsivity, paranoia and difficulties in relationships. In a huge study over time, 6000 children in all, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), researchers discovered that children who experienced long term or very severe bullying by their peers are seven times more likely to show symptoms of BPD at the age of 11. Producer: Fiona Hill.