Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:55:48.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Relative Deprivation and Counterfactual Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2009

Iain Walker
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Heather J. Smith
Affiliation:
Sonoma State University, California
Get access

Summary

The specific phenomenon that has been the principal stimulant of research on relative deprivation is the frequent discontinuity between objective and subjective well-being. Individuals' objective conditions (wealth, health, etc.) are, at best, imperfect predictors of their subjective satisfaction with their lives or situations. The insight provided by the construct of relative deprivation is that people evaluate their outcomes in relation to standards; when their outcomes fall below the standards, they feel “deprived.” Thus, feelings of deprivation are relative; that is, they imply a comparison with a standard.

Most sociologists and psychologists who have studied relative deprivation have focused on one particular type of comparison standard, namely, the outcomes of other people. That is, social comparisons have constituted the central mechanism hypothesized to underlie the occurrence of relative deprivation (see Olson, Herman, & Zanna, 1986). For example, in the most influential model of personal relative deprivation, Crosby (1976) proposed that one necessary precondition of relative deprivation is the perception that another person possesses a desired object.

Of course, other people's outcomes provide only one of many possible standards with which one's own outcomes could potentially be compared. For example, individuals could compare their current outcomes with their own outcomes in the past. Such temporal comparisons might yield dissatisfaction if past outcomes exceed current ones. Indeed, Gurr (1970) used the term decremental deprivation to refer to this situation, where decreasing outcomes over time yield anger.

Type
Chapter
Information
Relative Deprivation
Specification, Development, and Integration
, pp. 265 - 287
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×