Relative Deprivation

Smith, Heather J.; Pettigrew, Thomas F.; Pippin, Gina M.; Bialosiewicz, Silvana

doi:10.1177/1088868311430825

Cited by 791 publications

(551 citation statements)

References 268 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

445

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, people are likely to rely on heuristics in day to day life instead of more mentally taxing methods (Gigerenzer, Todd, & ABC Research Group, 1999). The idea that individuals use relative information to prescribe value is strongly supported by both theoretical predictions and empirical evidence (Festinger, 1954;Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012;Tversky & Kahneman, 1981,1986. Contextual factors, such as anchoring an evaluation on a reference point, seem to have predictable and robust effects on how people assess value (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993;Thaler, 1985Thaler, , 1999).…”

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Emphasizing this point, the results from a meta-analysis of relative deprivation research indicate that the strength of the link between relative assessments and relevant outcome variables depends on whether the reference point used for the assessment is clearly specified by the researcher (Smith et al, 2012). Too often it seems, researchers studying relative deprivation do not clearly specify relative to what an individual feels deprived.…”

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early on, Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) postulated that, in the absence of objective standards, people compare their opinions and abilities to similar others. A meta-analysis on relative deprivation research concluded that there was a clear association between negative social comparisons and resentment (Smith et al, 2012). It has also been shown that feelings of being socially deprived can be especially salient during periods of dramatic societal change (de la Sablonnière, Tougas, & Perenlei, 2009).…”

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Looking back in order to predict the future: Relative resource assessments and their relationship to future expectations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research, we investigated how relative resource assessments relate to future expectations. In previous research, resources are typically studied separately, and contextual influences and reference-point dependencies are often ignored. We addressed this in an online survey in which Icelanders (N = 611) assessed their economic, temporal, social, and emotional resources using four reference points (wants, others, past, future). We used exploratory factor analysis to reduce the four resources into three reliable factors: economic, temporal, and socio-emotional resources. Using hierarchical regression we found that assessments of socio-emotional and economic resources were related to future expectations, even after controlling for more objective resource markers, such as income and education. This relationship was strongest when past resources were used as the reference point for assessing current resources. We interpret these findings as suggesting that temporal comparisons to the past become more salient during times of instability, as Icelanders have recently gone through much economic and political turmoil. A psychological challenge for individuals recovering from economic collapse is to abstain from comparing current with past resource levels, as it elicits a loss experience. Overcoming a feeling that "it was better before" seems vital in re-establishing optimistic future expectations.Keywords: relative resource assessments, reference points, temporal relative deprivation, future expectations, optimism, worry It is well established that economic resources are positively related to well-being and positive future expectations (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002). Possessing a large resource reservoir makes individuals less vulnerable and facilitates the attainment of more resources (Hobfoll, 2002). Individuals who have enough resources therefore have good grounds for viewing the future brightly, as they can rest secure in the knowledge that they will most likely be able to face life's adversities. In contrast, people who feel that their resources are lacking may be worried about the future, as this exposes them to vulnerabilities ensued by negative events. But, how do you know if your current standing gives you cause for concern or optimism? Perhaps a subjective assessment of the available resources is as important as your objective resource levels! When making such an 1 Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Box 500, Gothenburg 40530, Sweden This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. assessment you are likely to evaluate your current standing relative to a reference known to you, using some type of reference point for the assessment.The following scenario illustrates this assessment process: Imagine that you were able to save €1600 two years ago, and €1000 last ye...

show abstract

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Is It Being Assessed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Looking back in order to predict the future: Relative resource assessments and their relationship to future expectations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…60,61 If individuals perceive that their fellow in-group members are also experiencing the same kinds of unfair treatment, then it is easier for them to attribute the unfair treatment to discrimination rather than to their personal characteristics. Second, according to the relative deprivation theory, 62 subjective judgments that one is better off than others is associated with positive personal outcomes, 63 and people often engage in downward comparisons to maintain and/or boost their selfesteem and positive affect. [64][65][66] Given that Black Americans in the current sample perceived more discrimination happening to fellow in-group members than to themselves on average, reflected in a higher mean of perceived group-level discrimination than that of perceived personal-level discrimination (3.86 vs 3.18, respectively), this is suggestive of downward comparison.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Effects of Personal-Level vs Group-Level Racial Discrimination on Health among Black Americans

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Racial/ethnic minorities in the United States not only experience discrimination personally but also witness or hear about fellow in-group members experiencing discrimination (ie, group-level discrimination). The objective of our study was to examine whether the effects of group-level discrimination on mental and physical health are different from those of personal level discrimination among Black Americans by drawing upon social psychology research of the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy. Design and Setting: We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from a larger study. Participants: One hundred and twenty participants, who self-identified as Black/ African Americans during the laboratory sessions (57.5% women, mean age = 48.97, standard deviation = 8.58) in the parent study, were included in our analyses. Main Predictor Measures: Perceived personal- level discrimination was assessed with five items that were taken from two existing measures, and group-level racial discrimination was assessed with three items. Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported physical and mental health were assessed with a modified version of SF-8. Results: Perceived personal-level racial discrimination was associated with worse mental health. In contrast, perceived group-level racial discrimination was associated with better mental as well as physical health. Conclusions: Perceived group-level racial discrimination may serve as one of several health protective factors even when individuals perceive personal-level racial discrimination. The present findings demonstrate the importance of examining both personal- and group-level experiences of racial discrimination as they independently relate to health outcomes for Black Americans. Ethn Dis. 2016;26:453-460; doi:10.18865/ ed.26.3.453

show abstract

“…Research has demonstrated that individuals' subjective experience of disadvantage is a powerful predictor of actions aimed at confronting the disadvantage (Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012). At the societal level, perceiving the system as unfair increases the likelihood that individuals take part in protest (Jost et al, 2012;Rothmund, Becker, & Jost, 2016).…”

Section: Direct Participation In Political Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for Anonymous as vicarious dissent: Testing the social banditry framework

Travaglino

2017

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research uses the social banditry framework to propose that voiceless individuals in an unjust context may express their grievances vicariously. Specifically, it holds that individuals who perceive the system as unjust but lack political efficacy, express their anger against the system as support for actors whose behavior disrupts the system's functioning. These actors are situated outside conventional societal and political structures of power, and institutions. To test the social banditry framework, two studies investigate attitudes toward Anonymous, a group of hackers who challenge the status quo using online tactics such as trolling. Study 1 (N = 304)demonstrates that appraising the system as more unjust, and perceiving lower political efficacy are positively linked to anger against the system, which in turn predicts more positive attitudes toward Anonymous. In contrast, stronger injustice-fueled anger and stronger political efficacy predict intentions to engage in direct forms of political action, such as protesting or voting. Study 2 (N = 410) replicates these findings, and theorizes and tests the role of individualistic and collectivistic values in predicting vicarious and direct expressions of dissent. Study 2 demonstrates that endorsement of horizontal individualism predicts positive attitudes towards Anonymous, whereas horizontal collectivism predicts engagement in direct political action. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Relative Deprivation

Cited by 791 publications

References 268 publications

Looking back in order to predict the future: Relative resource assessments and their relationship to future expectations

Looking back in order to predict the future: Relative resource assessments and their relationship to future expectations

Differential Effects of Personal-Level vs Group-Level Racial Discrimination on Health among Black Americans

Support for Anonymous as vicarious dissent: Testing the social banditry framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About