2002
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.91
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stereotypic ingroup bias as self‐defense against relative deprivation: evidence from a longitudinal study of the German unification process

Abstract: In a longitudinal questionnaire field study on psychological consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
33
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Low status groups often acknowledge superiority of the high status groups on status defining criteria, e.g. economic conditions in the case of European countries, but often claim superiority on alternate (often moral) criteria (Ellemers & van Rijswicjk, 1997;Poppe & Linssen, 1999;Schmit & Maes, 2002;Vadinu & Cerchioni, 2001). High status groups are generally more prototypic of the superordinate group, and low prototypicality of low status groups constitutes justification for their low status and inferior reward allocations (Wenzel, 2001).…”
Section: Characteristics Of the Intergroup Situationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low status groups often acknowledge superiority of the high status groups on status defining criteria, e.g. economic conditions in the case of European countries, but often claim superiority on alternate (often moral) criteria (Ellemers & van Rijswicjk, 1997;Poppe & Linssen, 1999;Schmit & Maes, 2002;Vadinu & Cerchioni, 2001). High status groups are generally more prototypic of the superordinate group, and low prototypicality of low status groups constitutes justification for their low status and inferior reward allocations (Wenzel, 2001).…”
Section: Characteristics Of the Intergroup Situationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of outcomes resulting from perceptions of relative deprivation have been suggested, including responses such as emotional stress, negative impacts on well-being, and poor physical and mental health (Bourguignon et al 2006;López Turley 2002;Schmitt and Maes 2002). Public health studies have linked relative deprivation to negative effects on stress, depression, heart disease, high blood pressure, suicide, homicide, eating habits, alcohol abuse, and mortality (López Turley 2002;Szwarcwald et al 1999;Ziller 2004), and self-esteem (Tougas et al 2004).…”
Section: Relative Deprivationmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Responses to relative deprivation include protest (Bourguignon et al 2006;Schmitt and Maes 2002), violence (Caprioli 2005), and migration (Quinn 2006;Valencia 2008). Others may respond to the negative psychological effects of relative deprivation by trying harder to succeed to improve their quality of life (Liao, Fu, and Yi 2005;López Turley 2002).…”
Section: Relative Deprivationmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For intergroup relations, the latter construct is central. Numerous different definitions of perceived relative deprivation can be found in the literature (Walker & Smith, 2002), for instance as a discrepancy between expectations and capabilities (Gurr, 1970), as an is-ought discrepancy (Schmitt & Maes, 2002), as including both wanting and deserving as necessary conditions (Olson, Roese, Meen, & Robertson, 1995), or as including the necessary conditions of both negative outcomes and illegitimacy appraisals (Kawakami & Dion, 1995;see Crosby, 1976;and Folger, 1986, for yet other conceptualisations).…”
Section: Perceived Relative Deprivationmentioning
confidence: 99%