Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group

Looking at customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) through the eyes of employees

7 March 2025 / admin / 0 Comments

In this post, Dr Richard Nicholls discusses how frontline employees (FLEs) can offer valuable insights into situations where customers interact with the other customers around them during the consumption of a service. This area of research, usually known as customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) or C2C interaction, has predominantly been investigate from a customer perspective but there are clear advantages to also gaining an employee perspective.

It has long been realised that as services are produced and consumed, that the customer is often ‘in the factory’. This makes managing services very different from managing manufacturing. There has been a vast amount of research on how employees and customers interact with one another (Subramony et al., 2021). But since the 1970s academics have become increasingly aware that customers also interact with each other, and this can influence how a service is experienced (Heinonen & Nicholls, 2022). This field is usually referred to conceptually as customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) or as customer-to-customer (C2C). Examples of CCI include a noisy passenger on a train, another shopper being extremely slow at the checkout, or, on a positive note, another customer providing some useful information.

The emergence of CCI and its focus on the customer’s perspective

There was relatively little published on CCI until a landmark article by Martin and Pranter (1989) spawned some significant pioneer publications in the 1990s (e.g., Baron, Harris, & Davies, 1996; Grove & Fisk, 1997). Developments such as the growth of the internet, the expansion of self-service technology and the growing interest in relationship marketing, served to fuel research interest in C2C in the noughties. Indeed, by the end of that decade it was considered that “the study of CCI has now joined the mainstream of service management research” (Nicholls, 2010, p. 94). Indeed, the same article, entitled ‘New directions for customer-to-customer interaction research’, catalysed further research into CCI (Colm et al., 2017; Nguyen & Menezes, 2021). Today, research into CCI has addressed a wide range of topics, including: the conceptualisation of CCI; the contexts that are associated with CCI; types of CCI; customer similarity and CCI; CCI and blame attribution; and the management of CCI (Nicholls, 2024).

When reviewing the CCI literature it becomes clear that most empirical studies are based on examining the customer perspective on CCI. These empirical studies take different approaches: some observe customers as they consume in service settings; some ask customers (on exit from the service setting) to recall any CCI experienced during the visit; some ask a sample to recall a memorable past incident of CCI, and so on. But ultimately, most studies describe CCI from a customer or customer-like perspective rather than through the eyes of the employee. This blog piece will focus on employees and CCI.

Frontline employees (FLEs) and CCI

The frontline employee is mentioned in the CCI literature. Indeed, over the last three decades the role of the FLE in managing CCI has received regular mention (Nicholls, 2024). In particular, the FLE service recovery role following C2C service failure has been highlighted (e.g., McQuilken et al., 2017). Likewise, some authors have discussed the views of customers on FLE responses to CCI (e.g., Hoffman & Lee, 2014). A few authors have pointed out that the FLE can be a contributor to negative CCI (e.g., Dorsey et al., 2016). However, although the FLE is frequently mentioned in the CCI literature (although often superficially), rarely has CCI been examined from the FLE perspective. Issues such as how perceptive FLEs are of CCI, or how they feel when dealing with CCI, have received extremely limited research attention (Nicholls & Gad Mohsen, 2019).

Nicholls and Gad Mohsen (2019) argue for the merits of seeking an employee perspective and present their research into CCI at a major library. The aim was to ground the investigation in employees’ experiences, using in-depth interviews with FLEs, to understand how employees notice, process and respond to CCI. The paper provides several findings that improve awareness of the value and nature of FLE insights into CCI. The study showed that employees could provide CCI insights that customers could not. It also revealed that employees could experience stress from managing C2C interaction and that the unpredictability surrounding customer reactions to employee intervention could be a major source of FLE stress. Furthermore, the study established that C2C interactions often took the form of triads, involving the FLE and two customer parties, and, as such, the study significantly extended understanding of the scope of triadic interactions.

Improving understanding of the FLE perspective on CCI

Far more needs to be understood about the FLE perspective on CCI. Two major areas for future research are (a) acquiring FLE insights to improve understanding of CCI and its management, and (b) improving understanding of the impact of dealing with CCI on FLE wellbeing (Nicholls, 2024). Regarding the former, key research issues include how FLEs acquire skills in handing difficult CCI situations; the approaches service organisations use to prepare FLEs for handling CCI situations; and FLE views on the adequacy of their training to handle CCI situations. Regarding the latter, key research issues include the long- and short-term psychological consequences of dealing with challenging CCI situations; the strategies adopted by FLEs to cope with CCI-induced stress; and the differences and similarities between handling difficult employee-to-customer interactions and difficult C2C interactions. Furthermore, building on Nicholls and Gad Mohsen (2019), further research into the service context in which an employee is interacting with two separate customer parties simultaneously has the potential to open up a new research front in the field of triadic interactions.

Dr Richard Nicholls

Richard is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Enterprise at Worcester Business School and the Customer Interactions Research Theme (CIRT) Lead. He is a member of the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group. Richard has published extensively on customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) in leading service journals and in specialist academic research books.

Discover & Connect: Interpersonal Relationships & Wellbeing Research Group Conference

20 November 2024 / admin / 0 Comments

The IRWB Research Group recently hosted its first in-person Conference, bringing together academics, students, practitioners and industry experts to share new research insights and foster collaboration. The event, held on November 6, featured a series of themed symposia, panel discussion, and individual presentations, that highlighted the diverse and innovative work being conducted across the Group.

The opening address – pictured: Dr Sarah Davis IRWB RG Lead

Research Group Lead and principal convenor of the event, Dr. Sarah Davis reflected, “It was a privilege to welcome such a talented and passionate group of researchers, practitioners and students to our first conference – we welcomed over 60 attendees across the day, including colleagues from across the University, and external guests from local organisations including Worcestershire Country Council, Herefordshire & Worcestershire Health and Care Trust, West Merica Police, a range of local social work and mental health charities, and academics from the Universities of Leicester and Cardiff. Our speakers shared their insights and knowledge on a range of cutting-edge topics tackling both the ‘light’ and ‘darker’ sides of wellbeing and interpersonal relationships that have great potential to translate into new collaborative work and practical applications. The conference also clearly highlighted the challenges of work in these fields, and the evolving landscape of research priorities. I am really pleased to learn that there are already several new research and knowledge exchange outputs planned that have arisen from conversations amongst colleagues and guests on the day, and look forward to seeing the continued impact of these research efforts in the coming months.”

“**Why we must Protest! Critical Perspectives on the Epidemic of Violence Against Women and Girls in England and Wales” Pictured:** Chair: Dr Claire McLoone-Richards; Sue Coleman, Chief Executive of West Mercia Women’s Aid: *In Other Words;* Emma Noble:*“But if he spams me, I know that he loves me…..” Welsh Further Education learners’ experience of online abusive behaviours in romantic relationships’;* Charlotte Woodward: *Violence against women and girls is a men’s issue*

Throughout the day, attendees had the opportunity to engage in lively discussions and network with peers. Researchers and external practitioners presented a diverse array of talks, including on the topic of customer and employee wellbeing in physical and virtual settings (Dr Richard Nicholls, Dr Ria Wiid; Dr Paulo Mora-Avila), positive wellbeing, relationships and mental health (Dr Daniel Farrelly, Nikki Ayles, Dr Naomi Lee, Dr Jack Brimmell, Dr Gill Harrop), critical perspectives on the status and application of Psychology (Dr Béré Mahoney, Dr Sarah Davis, Rich Hadley), career success and evaluation (Dr Barbara Menara; Prof. Lynn Nichol & Dr. Catharine Ross, Dr Pamela Murray), and trauma and violence prevention across different contexts and groups – including women and girls; domestic abuse and dementia within intimate partner relationships; teaching of sensitive topics in Higher Education, Dr Claire McLoone-Richards, Dr Beverley Gilbert and guests.

For anyone interested in this work who could not attend the conference, please take a look at the conference website with full speaker profiles and abstracts.

Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive with many delegates commenting that they would embed learning from the conference into their own professional or research practice.

Dr. Claire McLoone-Richards, who leads the Trauma & Violence Prevention theme within the Group, added: “Further to Sarah’s comments as the Convenor of the Discover and Connect Conference, I wanted to congratulate her on the success of this important event in the early stages of our new academic year. I looked forward to this conference as it was the first in a long time, that enabled colleagues within and beyond the university to Discover our mutual research and practice interests in research contexts. It was also very positive to observe and experience the Connections being made with colleagues at our event. So, in thinking ahead, I am hopeful that we can continue to keep meaningful connections with each other and future collaborations in our research together”.

**Panel Discussion: Complex Narratives of Domestic Abuse and Dementia. Pictured: Chair Dr Claire McLoone-Richards** with panel experts: Teresa Atkinson, Senior Research Fellow, Association of Dementia Studies; Bridget Brickley, Worcestershire Safeguarding Adults Board Manager; Paul Kinsella, Senior Public Health Practitioner, Worcestershire County Council

The Group are pleased that Discover & Connect was a success and are keen to hear from other practitioners and academics wishing to collaborate in these areas – please contact Dr Sarah Davis for further information.

Do you need to like each other to be a successful team?

17 September 2024 / admin / 0 Comments

With the start of the 24/25 football season and end of the cricket season, now is a great time to consider how teams work together. Drawing on insights from Social Psychology and Sports Psychology, Matt Spokes, Lecturer in Psychology, reveals some of the reasons why our favourite teams may underperform, so that next time you are watching your team play on the pitch (or maybe as an armchair critic!) you can understand why.

What makes a team work well?

Whether a team works well together or not depends on something called ‘Team cohesion’ – that is, how well a group sticks together to be united in the pursuit of the team’s objectives whilst also maintaining the satisfaction of team members’ emotional needs (Carron et al., 1998). Team cohesion depends on the bonds and relationships between group members – in other words, how much team members like each other (Bernthal & Insko, 1993) -but also the team’s commitment to attaining goals, e.g. winning games (Bernthal & Insko, 1993). Team members will weigh up how they feel about the task in front of them, as well as the desire to do well for the team. So how can we bring a team together, even if they don’t like each other?

Team Goals

Team goal setting can be one method used by sport psychologists to help build cohesion in a team as it can lead to improved team focus (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997). Athletes have suggested that team goal setting is a good way of building cohesion (Stevens & Bloom, 2003).

To set team goals, the team consider a range of different options (more shots on targets, more runs saved in the field, higher turnover %). Team members then individually select the most important goals, before discussing ideas and agreeing on collated goals (Senecal, Loughead & Bloom, 2008). Teams are encouraged to review and check that these goals are appropriate at certain time points e.g., during structured breaks in the season, or if they need re-structuring due to over or under performance.

Knowing what is required of you as a team member

If the team has set goals collectively, it is important that each member is also aware of how they can help achieve these. To create an effective team, team members should know what is required of them and how to achieve this (‘role clarity’). When team members have a lack of clear information to be able to perform actions for a certain position or role, this leads to ambiguity and can contribute to poorer team performance. Historically this can be linked to Kahn et al., (1964) who suggested there are three subtypes of task ambiguity. Firstly, scope of responsibility (athlete knows clearly what the expectations are), secondly, behavioural responsibilities (athlete knows what actions/skills will lead to achieving these expectations), and finally hierarchy of responsibilities (athlete knows what the priorities are to fulfil multiple expectations (Eys & Carron, 2001). This will look different dependent on the sport, for example it could be around the level of aggressiveness they play with, who they have to mark in a game, at what point they bowl in a match.

In contrast, role ambiguity can be down to a lack of information and messaging from key figures like coaches, or it could be the individual who may not understand or may have a different perception (Eys & Carron, 2001). Individuals that are unclear about their responsibility/role hold a lower viewpoint of the team’s task cohesiveness. The understanding of their role is key because it dissipates across a team and influences cohesion. If an athlete is not sure of what they need to do they will likely believe that their team mates also feel the same and as a result see the team lacking cohesiveness (Eys & Carron, 2001).

Social cohesion – for better or worse?

Social cohesion helps shape values of the group which can be linked to success. If a group values productivity the team members will have an expectation and social norm that is working to achieve the aims, so individuals are not only putting effort in for themselves but also the team (Langfred, 1998).

Social cohesion is not always good if it reinforces and perpetuates negative behaviours. There is also the risk that the social cohesion of a group can produce a lot of resistance which coaches may have a tough time trying to overcome with potential power struggles and conflicts experienced because of this (Pescosolido, & Saavedra, 2012). One example during the Cricket World Cup was the Flintoff pedalo debacle and fallout with the coach Duncan Fletcher.

Sometimes the culture may never be challenged, the group may stagnate and the ability to act with freedom and creativity to achieve the team goal is not always considered a priority (Hackman, 1992). The focus is instead on the social aspects and relationships within the team rather than the performance and team goals.

What happens when some players stop putting in effort whilst others continue to achieve the team goal?

The reduction in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively, compared to when they work individually, is described as ‘social loafing’ (Høigaard, Tofteland, Ommundsen, 2006).

Mulvey and Klein (1998) have suggested that perceived social loafing is where an athlete will make judgements about their teammates effort. This perception can be true and therefore justified, or false, either way it still brings around the same effect. The motivation and effort will drop and this impacts how good a team is because less effort is likely to mean worse performance. This perception of loafing may be due to the change in relationships and dynamics of the team.

If members think that others are loafing, they will likely respond by reducing effort themselves as they don’t want to be seen as being played/used by others. They’ll aim to match the level they believe others are operating at (Høigaard, Tofteland, Ommundsen, 2006).

If a team holds a performance culture or social norms which are centred on effort, i.e., working hard but also trying to perform to a high standard, this can be guard against social loafing. Task and social cohesion mentioned earlier are of great importance in protecting against social loafing. Social support elements of the team can help foster this further by providing feedback and reinforcement to one another (Høigaard, Tofteland, Ommundsen, 2006).

Putting the research into practice: What can coaches do to help teams?

Building clear communication, trust and understanding of team-mates will help build cohesion (Pescosolido, & Saavedra, 2012).

Being aware of the skills, emotions, preferences and typical responses of teammates is important. Knowing who might work well under pressure, what skills they can bring and execute in a competition all add to the performance of a team. According to Thompson 2012, there are 5 things coaches could work on to improve their teams:

1. Help the team players develop a collective identity, and focus on having clear roles. As a coach, you can learn what skill sets your players have, and start to discuss with them how you can see them using these skills in certain areas of the game.

2. Make it easier for team members to be close and build relationships (e.g., host team socials)

3. Focus on similarities among team members to bring them together

4. Highlight the positives of the team’s performance even during times of difficulty (coaches can do this by using half time breaks in play/drink breaks, to reinforce this)

5. Challenge the team, motivate them with goals that stretch them to work together

If you don’t coach, but you play sport like I do, then try your best to apply these in a slightly different way. Can you take an active role by trying to bring the team together through team socials across a season e.g. festive celebrations. Try and motivate your team-mates by highlighting positive performances during drinks breaks or at the end of a match.

Matt Spokes

Matt Spokes is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Worcester. He is interested in sports performance under pressure, and supporting athletes through injury, and is a
member of the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group.

If You Go Down to The Woods Today… Man or Bear?

13 May 2024 / admin / 0 Comments

Dr Gill Harrop

If you use social media, the chances are that you’ve seen the ‘man vs bear’ question being posed, discussed and even argued about. Essentially the question is this:

“If you’re walking through a forest, would you rather encounter an unknown man or a bear?”

Tiktokker ScreenshotHQ posted a video showing women answering this question and an overwhelming majority said they’d choose the bear. By May 2024, this video had been viewed more than 17 million times and provoked a plethora of responses. Most could be split into three categories: (1) women explaining why they’d choose the bear, (2) some men being incredulous and/or angry that women chose the bear, and (3) people noting that those who don’t understand women choosing the bear perhaps don’t understand the harassment and risk that many women face on a daily basis. By exploring these responses, we can start to understand the psychology behind them.

Why women choose the bear

The first thing to note is that this is not actually about bears. It’s not a debate on brown bears versus black bears or how to survive a bear attack. It’s a hypothetical situation that shines a light on the harassment that many women experience in the world, and the everyday decisions that many women have to make to stay safe. So why are women choosing the bear? There are two main options here: either women really love bears, or they’re seeing the unknown man as a greater potential risk. Assuming it’s the latter, is this a reasonable concern for women to have? Unfortunately, the data suggests it is. The World Health Organisation (2018) found that around 1 in 3 women have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence and EVAW (2022) reported that 2 out of 3 women aged 16-34 had experienced harassment in a single 12-month period, 44% had experienced catcalls, whistles and unwanted sexual comments and 29% had experienced being followed. The number of sexual offences, including rapes, reported to police in England and Wales is at an all-time high and around 2 women a week are still being killed by a partner or ex-partner, a figure that incredibly, has stayed the same for decades. Against this backdrop, we see the devastating murders of women such as Sarah Everard, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, who were attacked and killed by men while walking home or to meet friends. It’s important to note of course, that it’s not all men. It’s not even most men. The problem is that when faced with an unknown man, there’s often no way for women to tell if he’s dangerous or one of the many good ones. The dangerous ones don’t wear badges or villain costumes to reveal their true nature, so women can know how to react. Wayne Couzens even wore a police uniform, and had a warrant card, which should have been the ultimate signal that he could be trusted, that he was safe, and yet he still abducted and killed Sarah Everard just because he wanted to. So the man versus bear decision becomes a question of risk assessment.

Additionally, many women spoke about choosing the bear as they would be believed more readily if they reported that the bear had attacked them rather than the man. X user AmberLynnfit_noted that if a woman survived a bear attack, no one would ask what she had been wearing or been drinking. No one would suggest that the bear had always seemed really nice beforehand and that she might have ‘led him on’ or encouraged the attack. They wouldn’t have checked to make sure she had really said no and they certainly wouldn’t suggest not reporting the bear, for fear of ruining his reputation. While this response is arguably somewhat tongue-in-cheek, research on victim blaming confirms that these are very real concerns for women and girls who experience male violence. Anderson and Overby (2020) explored the negative impact of victim blaming on survivors of sexual violence and found that victim-blaming responses were common amongst friends and family, even when they supported the victim e.g. asking what they were wearing or if they had done anything to lead the perpetrator on. Anderson and Overby found that such victim blaming negatively affects the way that people respond to survivors of violence and can make it more difficult for victims to report their experiences.

Why does victim blaming happen at all?

Lerner (1980) suggested that people try to make sense of what we see around us to fit in with the idea that the world is just, everything happens for a reason and we will be okay as long as we just follow the ‘rules’. Essentially, bad things only happen to people who don’t follow the rules so as long as we follow them, then we’ll be okay. Of course, this is not how the world actually works and the problem occurs when this belief in a just world is used to frame people’s experiences of violence or harassment. When we see that someone else had a bad experience, the just world hypothesis can lead to us feeling scared that it might happen to us and make us worry that we are also at risk. So to make ourselves feel better and safer in what can feel like quite a scary world, we can seek to identify something the victim did that might have led to the dangerous situation happening. For example, if someone learns that the victim had a few drinks before an assault, they might say to themselves “well I wouldn’t drink that much so I’ll be okay”. Or they might decide that the victim said or did something that led the perpetrator to behave violently, so they can think “I would never behave that way, so I don’t need to worry”. The problem is that in making themselves feel better and more safe, they are unfairly placing blame for what happened onto the victim. Stromwall, Alfredsson and Landstrom (2023) found that belief in a just world was a powerful predictor of how much blame was attributed to victims of sexual violence. Essentially, the more we want to believe the world is fair and we can keep ourselves safe, the more likely we are to engage in victim blaming.

So how can we prevent victim blaming?

Firstly, by recognising that the only person responsible for violence, abuse and harassment is the perpetrator. It doesn’t matter what someone was wearing, what they were drinking, or whether they had been ‘nice’ to the person prior to the event. 100% of the responsibility lies with the perpetrator, so the next time someone describes a difficult situation to you or discloses that they have experienced harassment, consciously try to replace victim-blaming questions with more supportive responses such as ‘that’s not okay’, ‘it’s not your fault’ and ‘what can I do to help?

Why are some men angry that women choose the bear?

Much of the answer to this comes down to perception. Those who are annoyed at women choosing the bear often perceive it as a dig at them or at men in general. As if the women are saying “I’d rather risk death or injury from a dangerous animal than encounter you”. But as discussed above, the scenario is based on an unknown man. Women are not saying they’d choose a bear over their partner, their dad or their male friends, who they know to be trustworthy. They’re rejecting the unknown male, where there is no way of knowing the level of risk posed. This response also speaks to some people’s lack of understanding of the risks that women face in everyday life and perhaps even an unwillingness to accept that these are women’s experiences. They assume that women must be exaggerating the risk or must just be a man-hater. Why else would they choose a dangerous bear over a ‘safe’ man? They don’t perceive the man as a risk to them so can’t understand why a woman might view it differently. The reality of course is that men getting visibly angry at women choosing the bear, and berating them for their decision, actually reinforces many women’s response to the question. As X user AndreaRhoden put it “a bear wouldn’t ask me ‘man or bear’ and then ‘bearsplain’ to me why I chose wrong’. If someone get genuinely angry at women for choosing a hypothetical bear in a hypothetical scenario, and just wants to tell her why she’s wrong, rather than listening to and believing her lived experience, maybe they would benefit from engaging in some self-reflection about how to better support the women in their life.

So what can you do?

Consider what good allyship looks like, think about how to be an active bystander and listen to a range of opinions on this hypothetical scenario. A great place to start is Tiktokker DadChats who brilliantly analyses the scenario from a statistical perspective to determine the risk of the man versus the bear. You can also talk about it to others. Fairbairn (2020) suggests that having conversations about hypothetical scenarios is an ideal way for people to get a better understanding of violence against women and girls, and see the role that they can play in tackling it. Such conversations lead to narrative shifts and development of a better understanding of the societal norms that enable, or conversely tackle, such violence and harassment. If we’re going to tackle violence against women and girls, more people have to first acknowledge that there is a real problem which is worthy of tackling, and having these conversations is a vital part of that process.

How would you answer the man versus bear question now?

Maybe you’re still strongly team bear, or maybe you’re dead set on choosing the man and think that it’s ridiculous that anyone would choose the bear. Whichever way you fall on this issue, here’s the reality: most women ARE choosing the bear. Whether you consider that to be a sensible choice or not, this is not coming out of nowhere and it is too many women to just brush it off as silly decision-making, extreme feminism or even a lack of bear-knowledge. If you’re lucky, you didn’t have to be told about self-defence from a young age, or learn to ‘wolverine’ your keys through your fingers while walking home at night to fight off a potential attacker. Hopefully you’ve never experienced having to get off a train at the wrong stop as the creepy guy in the carriage won’t leave you alone, been groped in a pub/coffee shop/on the street, had to cross the street to get away from the man who was following you or called out to a pretend housemate as you opened your front door so the taxi driver who had been making lewd comments to you the whole way home thought there was a man inside your house. If you’ve never had to think about any of these things, the bear probably does seem like a crazy choice. But that is the reality for many women as they go about their lives and until that changes… sorry, but I’m choosing the bear.

Dr Gillian Harrop

Dr Gill Harrop is a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Worcester and leads the UW Bystander Intervention Programme. She is a member of the Trauma & Violence Prevention research theme within the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group.

Enabling purpose-driven ethical leadership via The Platinum Leadership Award at the University of Worcester.

10 May 2024 / admin / 1 Comment

by Dr Pamela F Murray, Worcester Business School

The People and Work Research theme brings together researchers with an interest in understanding the dynamics of workplace relationships from an interpersonal and organisational perspective. A major focus of this work involves developing approaches to enhance leadership and the work-based practice of existing and future employees.

In the role of Leadership Development Facilitator for the Careers and Employability Service Platinum Leadership Award, I collaborated with Rose Watson from the University of Worcester Careers & Employability Service, combining forces to produce a rewarding experiential learning experience fuelled by a clear purpose, to be of service to others. Therein I sought to develop a programme for students that would align with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). PRME’s mission is to transform management education and develop responsible decision-makers of tomorrow to advance sustainable development. It engages business and management schools to ensure they provide future leaders with the skills needed to balance economic, environmental, and social goals, while drawing attention to the UNs Sustainable Development Goals.

The Platinum Leadership award directly mapped to:

SDG4 Quality Education: Ensure inclusive and equitable education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

SDG16 Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals : Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

What happened on the Platinum Leadership Worcester Award?

Platinum Leadership Award Recipients at the Awards Celebration, University of Worcester St John’s Campus, with facilitators Dr Pamela Murray and Rose Watson

Twelve highly motivated students were invited to take part in the Platinum Award. These students had already progressed through preceding bronze, silver and gold award levels of the scheme, and had demonstrated that they were able to competently apply knowledge and skills in employment settings. Rolled out over a period of three days, the aim of the platinum programme was for students to take the lead on developing strategies to promote a sense of belonging in their fellow peers to underpin student confidence and encourage cohesion.

First and second day activities blended theory and its implementation. From the off students explored their self-awareness and self-regulation using a range of salient diagnostics to prepare them for the ensuing development scenarios. For the immersive aspects of the learning experience, a ‘challenge by choice’ philosophy was accompanied by the reality that leaders can be ‘visible and vulnerable’.

Situational tasks called for solution-based learning to evaluate plausible alternatives. Through a newly developed leadership-oriented lens, discussions were lively! Approaches were tried out to address and resolve concerns, including the ‘coming alongside’ technique intended to garner accurate empathy of benefit to the overall process. With practise and feedback, participants generated and maintained encouragement to fulfil their goals.

Our ‘leaders-under-training’ became mutually accountable for accomplishment. Progressing from group work to teamwork, they displayed an awareness of how to use dynamics to get the best from one another, drawing on emotional maturity to prevent derailment of the project work and ensure its success.

From the gains elicited from the application and reflection activities in the guided discovery, the third day involved a formal presentation of proposals to key parties interested in supporting student belonging.

My reflections as a facilitator of the award

I appreciated the chance to share an introduction to sustainable leadership proficiency and ethical literacy for the enrichment of others. It was rewarding to witness the development of the Platinum Awardees’ leadership identities, expressed through values in action, bespoke signature strengths, and resilience. The Platinum Leaders demonstrated their capabilities of worth to their local and wider communities, whilst expanding their skill portfolios.

The student perspective on becoming a Platinum leader

Oliver Nightingale, Physiotherapy Student, Department of Allied Health

What did you take away from the experience?

“The 3-day leadership award opened my eyes to the impact of leadership and team cohesion. The lessons, experiences and skillset obtained from the leadership course have and will continue to support and sustain my development as a current student and future professional practitioner. The collaborative aspect of the course stands out as an impactful and valuable experience. Despite multidisciplinary working being a common occurrence in healthcare, the breadth and diversity of students on the course enabled me to seek out different perspectives, viewpoints and experiences that shaped our cohesive collaboration on the day. The activities on the leadership course deepened my understanding of team cohesion, resilience, advocating for others, problem solving, courageous leadership and networking.”

How will you use your leadership skills in the future?

“I have been involved with the Children’s Alliance, volunteering to play a small role in the facilitating of the conference. I have gone on to become the Department Rep for Allied Health, being the student voice representative for over 500 students and planning multi-disciplinary conference within the school. I have also been inspired by the potential of effective leadership, innovation, and sustainability, and I am planning to develop my own charity to provide more accessible care to those in society with limited access and vulnerabilities, such as young people and individuals living with disabilities.”

“The Platinum Award was an incredible catalyst to help me realise my potential, showing the importance of a ‘can do’ attitude, empathy, grit, kindness and courage to work with others to make real change.”

For further information and to find out more about Pamela’s work, please get in touch p.murray@worc.ac.uk.

Dr Pamela F Murray

Dr Pamela F Murray Senior is a Lecturer in Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Worcester Business School, and a member of the University of Worcester Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group, People and Work research theme. In this post, Pamela discusses her work in leadership learning and the success of the Platinum Leadership award, developed in partnership with the University’s Careers and Employability Service.

Interested in PhD study?

21 March 2024 / admin / 0 Comments

We are pleased to announce the release of six new PhD projects that will be supervised by members of the Interpersonal Relationships & Wellbeing Research Group. These opportunities are for self-funding students and align with major areas of research activity within the group.

Why study our projects?

We asked project supervisors to give us an insight into the value and importance of their proposed projects and we share their comments below. Please click on the project title links to find out more.

Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Life History Theory

Dr Daniel Farrelly, Principal Lecturer in Psychology will supervise this project and Daniel explains why this work is important:

“Our early surroundings can have profound and lifelong effects on our cognition, perception and emotions. These effects shape how we respond to our world in later life, and can predict how we interpret and behave in different scenarios such as risk-taking, impulsivity and social relationships. One possible further effect our early life can have is on pro-environmental behaviour, and this project will explore precisely this. By doing so it will offer valuable insights into how attempts to tackle the climate crisis can be shaped for different populations in society.”

Training emotional competency in the workplace: Does ‘one size’ really ‘fit all’?

Dr Sarah Davis, Principal Lecturer in Psychology and Interpersonal Relationships & Wellbeing Group Lead will supervise this project. Sarah explains that:

“Training emotional competencies in the workplace has become commonplace, particularly with the rise of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy. Most of us will have heard of programmes that teach ‘perspective taking’, ‘sensitivity training’, or ‘emotional intelligence’ in our workplaces. But does everyone always benefit from these ‘interventions’ at work? Might there be some unanticipated and unintended consequences for employers and employees? This research seeks to explore the scope of these practices within organisations across the UK and explore this neglected but important question.”

“Getting On With It!”: Ensuring Safe and Compassionate Supervision and Thinking Spaces for Practitioners in Child Protection Practice

Dr Claire McLoone-Richards, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Violence Prevention, Trauma and Criminology and leader of our Trauma & Violence Prevention theme will supervise this project. Claire outlines why this research is valuable:

“The professional experiences and practices of child protection is complex, challenging and takes a toll on the emotional well-being and resilience of practitioners. This study can examine the need for promoting and ensuring organisational cultures of compassion and safety for staff, as being conducive to enabling critical reflective practice to protect vulnerable children.”

“Please take us seriously!”: examining the help and support needs of male victims of domestic abuse

Dr Claire McLoone-Richards Senior Lecturer in the Department of Violence Prevention, Trauma and Criminology and leader of our Trauma & Violence Prevention theme will supervise this project. Claire explains:

“This is an important research theme when considering the experiences of less visible and marginalised groups. The concern of male victims is troubling against the backdrop of “toxic masculinities” in society, as restrictive gender norms and the shaming of men, make it more difficult for victims to disclose their experiences of abuse.”

Read more from Dr McLoone-Richards here.

Responsible virtual assistant for effective marketing communication

Dr Sajad Rezaei, Senior Lecturer in Digital Marketing, and member of our Customer Interactions theme will supervise this project. Sajad believes that “exploring Responsible AI empowers academics and practitioners to discover the potential of emerging technologies for society.”

How care-experienced individuals define and achieve career success

Dr Pamela Murray, Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Organisational Behaviour, and member of our People and Work theme will supervise this project. Pamela notes that “A regrettable relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and a range of marked negative outcomes impacting the life course exists [see a recent report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood:

Children enter the care system for a myriad of reasons, most of which can be characterised by loss of a pivotal positive in the children’s lives. That being the case, this vision of this research is to explore enabling interventions experienced by care-leavers making their way toward personal fulfilment by achievement of career aspirations”.

How to apply

If you wish to apply for any of these projects, please go to our Course Search and select the relevant research degree programme area.

An application link can then be found towards the bottom of each programme page. In your application, please remember to clearly highlight that you are applying for one of our un-funded MPhil/PhD project ideas.

Addressing the Amber: The importance of noticing and tackling low-level problematic behaviours

14 September 2023 / admin / 0 Comments

Picture the scene – you’re in the cinema, ready to watch the next instalment of your favourite film franchise. As the opening credits roll, the person behind you starts talking loudly on their phone and kicking the back of your seat. How do you feel? And more specifically, are you bothered by their behaviour? The likelihood of course is that you’re extremely bothered – they’re disrupting your cinema experience. But what about if they were just whispering on their phone, or if the seat kicking was just an occasional tap? Or maybe they move to be closer to their mate, and now it’s not your seat that’s being kicked anymore, its someone else’s a few seats down. Are you still bothered?

Why does this matter?

The type of things that we notice and are bothered by affect the way that we respond to the world around us. Berkowitz (2010) noted that if we personally find a particular behaviour bothersome, we’re more likely to notice when it happens and take action to address it.

Deitch-Stackhouse et all (2015) explored this link further by investigating exactly how bothered someone must be by something, for them to regularly intervene. They found that there was a significant step up in willingness to intervene when people went from being ‘moderately bothered’ by a situation to ‘very bothered’. So essentially, we have to think that something is pretty bad in order for us to consistently notice it and think about intervening. This works reasonably well when behaviours do meet that ‘bothering’ threshold, such as someone committing assault or stealing another person’s property. These behaviours would be considered problematic to most people, usually generating a response of “this is not okay and someone should do something”. In a traffic light system, of red, amber and green, these would be considered red behaviours i.e. clearly problematic.

The traffic light analogy is a useful way to consider a range of possible behaviours across a spectrum of how problematic they are. In 2014, Brook adapted a traffic light tool from Family Planning Queensland (2012) to reflect the spectrum of behaviours in young people from unacceptable ‘red’ behaviours such as sexual harassment to more acceptable ‘green’ behaviours, such as mutually consensual hugging with peers. Essentially green behaviours are considered safe and healthy, while red behaviours are not. But what about the amber behaviours that do not fall neatly into either red or green?

The Hackett Continuum (2010) in Barter & Berridge, 2010 suggests that amber behaviours are those which have the potential to fall outside of safe and healthy behaviours, and can be affected by a range of factors, including context, age, and the vulnerability of those concerned. This can make it much more challenging to notice and correctly identify these behaviours when they happen. They can also generate a lower level of ‘bother’, resulting in little or no action being taken (remember Deitch-Stackhouse et al.’s finding from earlier that someone needed to be ‘very bothered’ by something to consistently notice and intervene). There are two options for responding to this challenge from the perspective of preventing problematic behaviour: (1) focus on addressing only the red behaviours and accept that amber behaviours are often going to be overlooked or (2) increase awareness of amber behaviours and encourage a culture where people are more bothered by them, so they are more likely to notice and intervene.

The argument for the second option is that red and amber behaviours are not separate entities. They are intrinsically linked, and a healthy culture does not include either type of behaviour, therefore increasing awareness and ‘bother’ towards amber behaviours is an important part of the prevention of violence and abuse. Steven Connell’s powerful spoken work piece ‘We Are The Lions’ includes the observation that there is often is a link between the things that we don’t have a problem with, and the things that we do, which speaks to the idea that people can often ignore or ‘shrug off’ amber behaviours as they are not deemed to be bad enough, failing to recognise that they can contribute to a culture of red behaviours. For example, someone laughing when their friend shares a sexist WhatsApp message may not feel like a big deal – they may justify it by saying it’s just a joke or that it’s not serious enough to result in any consequences for the sender (e.g. “I wouldn’t want my mate to lose out on his placement just for having a laugh”). The question then becomes: where is the line? What would it take for that person to stop brushing it off and meet Deitch-Stackhouse et al.’s threshold of being ‘very bothered’ – when a specific person was named in the message? When the sexist ‘jokes’ were made in front of others? When female friends leave a night out early because they feel so uncomfortable by the sexist ‘banter’? There has to be a line somewhere, and in order to a achieve a culture where problematic behaviour is not tolerated, the noticing and feeling bothered enough to act must start with the amber behaviours rather than waiting for the red.

There is no way to compile an exhaustive of possible amber behaviours as it encompasses so many possibilities, but essentially it is those behaviours which make someone feel uncomfortable, or would make them uncomfortable if it was directed at them or those they cared about. Of course, problematic behaviour should not be acceptable regardless of who it is directed at, but using the ‘would I feel uncomfortable if it was directed at me/my friends …?’ strategy can be an effective way to encourage people to notice behaviours that might otherwise be brushed off or go under the radar.

How to respond to amber behaviours

The short answer is to do something – be an active bystander. There is often a misperception when it comes to bystander intervention that to intervene means to be loud and accusatory “You are doing something wrong, and I am calling you out on it!” However, that is simply not the case. Being prepared to speak up and address amber behaviours simply means doing something when you encounter them. That might be having a conversation with a friend, adding a comment in a WhatsApp group that you don’t think something’s okay, or even noting that you’ll be muting the group for a while. You could also use indirect methods of intervention, such as having a conversation with a tutor, coach, or committee chair to discuss any concerns. You might distract or interrupt a situation to stop it progressing, or just ask the people around you if they also feel uncomfortable with something. Often all it takes is for one person to say they feel uncomfortable, for others to feel able to admit that that they feel the same.

Flood (2011) suggested a range of specific actions that could be taken to challenge problematic behaviours, including lower level ‘amber’ behaviours:

Ask for an explanation – the phrase ‘what do you mean?’ can be really impactive here as it requires the speaker to explain what they have just said. A sexist joke can quickly lose its humour if they are required to explain the problematic tropes contained within it.

Express your disagreement – This can be as simple of saying ‘that’s not right/okay’. If you don’t want to be confrontational in the moment, Khan (2015) suggested the phrase “I’m not interested in having this conversation right now, but it’s important for you to know that I am not okay with what you just said”. This would work face to face or as a written message e.g., on WhatsApp

Explain why you disagree with the behaviour – Khan suggested the example phrase “what you’re saying is not only untrue, but is also harmful”. You can acknowledge that they may have meant it as a joke, then note the possible effects e.g. “I think comments like that contribute to our female friends feeling less safe around us on nights out so I think we need to be more careful”

Personalise the injustice – Virginia Tech (2010) noted that a useful phrase to help personalise behaviours is “I hope no one ever talks about you like that”. You could also ask how they would feel if some behaved that way towards their friends/partner/family member.

Use impact and ‘I’ statements – this involves stating how you feel, naming the amber behaviour and noting how you want them to respond e.g. “I was annoyed when you made that comment on a night out and caused our friend to leave early. Don’t do that any more or we won’t invite you on nights out”.

Encourage their best self – use the phrase ‘come on, you’re better than that” (Be The Hero, 2009)

Use your friendship – e.g. you could say ‘as your friend, I need to tell you that showing everyone the pictures that your girlfriend sent you in private is not okay and you could get into a lot of trouble.

Invite the group to be allies – a good phrase to use here is “I don’t feel right about this. Does anyone else feel uncomfortable?” (Be the Hero, 2009)

These suggested actions align with the ‘Maate’ campaign launched by the Mayor of London in July 2023, where men were encouraged to challenge problematic behaviour from their friends by using the term “maate”. This campaign focused on the premise that many men and boys want to intervene when they see sexism and misogyny, but don’t necessarily know exactly what to say or how to start the conversation. Having a specific term to use, such as “maate”, or using some of the phrases suggested by Flood above, can mean that bystanders don’t have to come up with something in the moment, and instead can rely on an existing bank of suitable phrases and interventions.

By committing to these types of actions, every single person can start to challenge amber behaviours, often before they have the chance to turn into red ones, and in doing so, we become part of a culture where there is a clear message that violence and abuse, however low-level, will not be tolerated.

This blog ends with a challenge – the next time you’re in a situation where you feel a little uncomfortable, even if you’re not sure why, channel Catherine Tate’s famous teenage character Lauren, and ask yourself “am I bothered?” And if you find that you are, even if the behaviour is only amber rather than red, make the decision to act

For more information about the UW Bystander Intervention Programme, please email g.harrop@worc.ac.uk or visit our website:

Dr Gillian Harrop

Dr Gill Harrop is a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Worcester and leads the UW Bystander Intervention Programme. She is a member of the Trauma & Violence Prevention research theme within the Interpersonal Relationships Wellbeing Research Group. Further details of Gill’s work can be found at https://www.worcester.ac.uk/about/profiles/dr-gillian-harrop

We rarely consume alone

31 January 2023 / admin / 0 Comments

In this post, Dr Richard Nicholls discusses how the other customers around us during the consumption of a service can exert an influence on how we experience that service. This area of research, usually known as customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) or C2C interaction, is expanding rapidly.

The second half of the 20^th century saw a growing awareness of the dominance of the service economy. An important consequence of this is that services and their management have received increasing research attention. Evidence of this can be found in the proliferation of service journals over recent decades. For example, the Journal of Services Marketing; the Journal of Service Research; Journal of Service Management; and The Service Industries Journal. A core theme of service research has been customer interaction. The scope of customer interaction has broadened over the decades. In the early years of service research, the focus was on human interactions with employees, but these days interaction research includes interactions with brands, websites, virtual digital assistants, service robots and with other customers.

The growing realisation that interactions between customers are important

In the 1980s and 1990s there was a prevalent customer interaction research focus on interactions between frontline employees and customers (i.e., E2C interaction). It was, however, increasingly realised that many interactions occurred between the customers themselves (i.e., customer-to-customer or C2C interaction). Early work helped to conceptualise how C2C interaction could be understood and to identify areas for future research. The growth of the internet, and new service formats enabled by the internet, made more people receptive to the idea that customers can co-create (or co-destroy) value with one another. Furthermore, partly due to the rapid growth of self-service, it was realised that some services had more C2C than E2C interaction. Moreover, as suggestions increasingly came forwards for ways of managing interactions between customers, growing numbers of managers and researchers felt C2C to be a field worth investigating.

A focus on C2C interactions inside service settings

The influence of customers on one another is a wide-ranging research theme (Heinonen et al., 2018; Heinonen & Nicholls, 2022). Whilst much C2C influence takes place away from the service setting through consumers exchanging views, often in their own social circles, on the merits of various products and providers, this is generally labelled word-of-mouth (WOM). Moreover, it is not specifically connected with services, as much WOM concerns goods. Following a ground-breaking paper by Martin and Pranter (1989), some service researchers have focused on the C2C influence occurring in service settings themselves, often referring to this as CCI (customer-to-customer interaction). Three main groupings of CCI exist. The first is in-group interaction, which is often seen as family or group consumption behaviour and concerns how family and/or friends in a group interact with one another during service consumption (e.g., shopping together). The second group is the influence of other customers, typically strangers and not family or friends, who merely happen to be part of the scene and exert indirect influence such as contributing to the collective ambiance of a service setting. A third group is direct interactions in a service setting between customers, typically strangers, who have entered the setting separately. Such interactions, known as direct on-site CCI (Nicholls, 2010), are often short and unplanned. Some C2C interactions can, however, be quite extended, especially in industries such as travel, tourism, and education.

Interactions between customers take many forms

The author’s research has focused mainly on direct on-site CCI. It has included conceptualising such interactions, identifying types, and considering how these interactions can be managed. In a recent paper (Nicholls, 2020), the author identified nine distinct categories of CCI: (1) shared use space, (2) assigned space and possessions, (3) information provision, (4) assistance, (5) social conversations, (6) disrespectful attitude, (7) queuing discipline, (8) transaction efficiency and (9) undesired customers and ‘camouflaged customers’. These categories are designed to accommodate most of the customer behaviours that affect the service experience of other customers as consumers attempt to do things like share a common space with strangers, queue for service, and ask or offer assistance to strangers. For example, the ‘shared use space’ category reflects the reality that in many service settings, such as trains, libraries and cinemas, common space exists that needs to be recognised as sufficiently under a customer’s control or influence to gain appropriate benefit from the service. An illustration of this is the desire of many customers for a train environment that excludes other passengers playing their music loudly or talking persistently on their mobiles. The article (Nicholls, 2020) provides detailed descriptions, discussion, and illustrations of all nine categories. It also provides a 38-question audit tool to assist practitioners in identifying the aspects of CCI that are most pertinent to their organisation. Understanding that customers rarely consume alone and can be influenced, both positively and negatively, by the other customers surrounding them, offers a useful path for gaining fresh insights into customer care. Moreover, the relevance of interactions between customers has never been more relevant than in these Covid-dominated times, with concerns such as how near others are, why others are loitering by the shop entrance, and who has touched what (e.g., a shopping trolley handle) before us.

Dr Richard Nicholls

Richard is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Enterprise at Worcester Business School and the Customer Interactions Research Theme (CIRT) Lead, which is part of the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group. Richard has published extensively on customer-to-customer interaction (CCI) in leading service journals and in specialist academic research books. Three members of the group are currently working on a project that examines the management of customer-to-customer interaction in supermarkets. Research is also underway into how family members may influence one another’s food consumption.

Appointment of new Ambassadors of the Children’s Alliance 

13 September 2022 / admin / 0 Comments

The Children’s Alliance emerged from ‘Water Babies’, an organisation aiming to give all young children access to the nurturing impact and confidence of water time. In seeking to help children from early years through to young adulthood, The Children’s Alliance extended this childhood-centric orientation. With the adage ‘it takes a village to raise a child in mind, the Children’s Alliance has collaborated with a range of committed specialists and practitioners from a variety of backgrounds, to explore how best to improve the quality of children’s lives. 

For children throughout the UK, the Children’s Alliance has created information-rich sources and facilitated evidence-based knowledge exchange, to influence community and national practices enabling children’s development. It is through this medium Pamela and Alison have joined forces with peers to ensure that challenges faced by children, which detract from their living healthy and happy lives, are identified and addressed. Pamela and Alison have contributed towards the development of four published reports:

Children’s Alliance (September, 2022) Family and Community.
Children’s Alliance (July, 2022). The Mental Health of Children and Young People. 
Children’s Alliance (October, 2021). The Health and Wellbeing of Children in the Early Years
Children’s Alliance (December, 2021). The Physical Health of Children and Young People. 

The first aim of the reports is to broaden politicians’ awareness of the health and wellbeing issues currently facing children in the UK (such as, detrimental impacts of inadequate physical activity, poorly recognised or inadequately supported mental health issues, or socio-economic and cultural inequalities). 

The second aim of the reports is highlight the need for a ministerial position dedicated to the health and wellbeing of children and young people. The culmination of the work undertaken provides a policy template that is proof positive of the Children’s Alliance contention that the new Prime Minister should appoint a cabinet minister with overall responsibility for Children and Young People at the earliest opportunity. 

The Rt Hon Anna Firth MP receiving the quartet of reports on behalf of the Houses of Parliament.

To this end the Children’s Alliance Reception, hosted by the Right Honourable Anna Firth MP, took place on 7^th September 2022 in the Terrace Pavilion at the Palace of Westminster.

As Ambassadors, Pamela and Alison joined the throng of voices aiming to champion viable beginnings for every child to experience physical, social, emotional and mental wellbeing for life.  Pamela and Alison are pictured below with the Children’s Alliance Honorary President the Rt. Honourable Baroness D’Souza at the event.

You can read more about Pamela’s work as an ambassador for The Children’s Alliance in her earlier blog post:

Dr Pamela F Murray

Pamela is a Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Organisational Behaviour at Worcester Business School and member of the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group.

Highlighting issues with the jury system

5 March 2024 / admin / 0 Comments

Recently, there have been several programmes highlighting issues with the jury system. In the US there was Jury Duty (Heller, 2023), a reality hoax series about jury service. In this programme, all jurors, witnesses, attorneys and even the judge are actors, except for one juror, Ronald Gladden who thinks he is serving on a real jury trial. Although comedic, this programme highlights issues within the US jury system and jury decision-making more generally.

In the UK, The Jury: Murder Trial, was shown on Channel 4 (Shapira, 2024). Unlike Jury Duty, this was a dramatisation of a real, anonymised murder case with two real juries (classified as red and blue) trying the case. Neither jury was aware of one another in order to investigate whether they both reached the same verdict. The programme reiterated that little is known about jury decision making. This is not helped by restrictions imposed by s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1981. Under this act, jurors are forbidden from talking about their deliberations and research inside the jury room is forbidden meaning jury decision-making processes are shrouded in secrecy (Curley et. al., 2022; Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Sprain & Gastil, 2017).

In the programme, it was evident how the individual decision quickly became a collective one, and how the group dynamic plays a crucial role in the decision-making processes, for example, the influence of strong personalities on the group. The programme also highlighted how difficult the role of the jury is, and the cognitive and emotional toll it takes on jurors. In particular, it demonstrated the dissonance in how they felt they should make the decision according to legal instruction, versus how they would like to make the decision according to their feelings or intuition. It also demonstrated how much of the decision was influenced by their own schemas and experiences, for example, one juror told the group how he threw a plate at his wife during an argument, showing how someone could lose their self-control. Additionally, it demonstrated the role of emotion in making the verdict decision. Feelings toward the defendant were portrayed by jurors who said things like, ‘I feel sorry for him’, and also towards the victim, which were often more negative and demonstrated victim blame, e.g., ‘she was goading him’. Even feelings toward the other witnesses and barristers played a role in the decision of murder or manslaughter in this case.

Although we only see a snapshot of the data/footage in these television programmes, they do highlight issues with juries that could affect fairness, and how we need to know much more about the collective decision-making processes of the jury.

My PhD research explores the group decision-making processes of the jury, and I have found similarities with these programmes, particularly The Jury: Murder Trial. I also used an anonymised murder case, and two mock juries that were present for the trial and who then deliberated to reach a verdict. These juries were not run simultaneously but on two separate occasions. My research aims to explore how the jury reach a verdict, and how the group itself i.e., interpersonal processes, group dynamics, effect or influence that decision making.

I found that the juries in my research also based their decisions on their own experiences, schemas, and values. They very quickly became a decision making group rather than a set of individuals, and although minority members conformed to the majority with very little questioning or argument, they did not recognise the influence of the group on this change of decision. Despite being in a mock jury and knowing that there were no real consequences of their decision making, I also found that jurors struggled psychologically and emotionally with their decision. They mentioned the discomfort between how they were meant to make the decision and how they actually felt the decision should go, i.e., they were instructed to make the decision objectively on the evidence presented, but felt that the defendant was actually guilty. Both groups did find the defendant ‘not guilty’ despite him being charged with murder in the real trial.

These kinds of findings, both in the Channel 4 programme, and in my research, are worrying as jurors show that they are not objective decision makers, but base their decisions on feelings, existing schemas, and the influence of the group itself.

Sarah Lloyd

Sarah Lloyd is a Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Worcester. She is a member of the Trauma & Violence Prevention research theme within the Interpersonal Relationships Wellbeing Research Group. Sarah is interested in how the jury collectively reach their verdict decision and the group processes involved in this. Sarah’s PhD explores this topic in the context of a murder trial. Further details of Sarah’s work can be found at https://www.worcester.ac.uk/about/profiles/sarah-lloyd