Relative Deprivation and Adolescent Outcomes in Iceland:
A Multilevel Test
Jon Gunnar Bernburg, University of Iceland
Thorolfur Thorlindsson, University of Iceland
Inga Dora Sigfusdottir, Reykjavik University
The theory of relative deprivation emphasizes that social
comparisons contextualize how people experience impoverishment. An important application of this theory argues
that relative deprivation that stems from unfavorable social
comparisons can result in anger, normlessness and an increased
likelihood of deviant behavior. We test this theory in a new
societal setting - Iceland. Specifically, we test the proposition
that the effects of economic deprivation on individual outcomes
are contingent on the standard of living enjoyed by the person's
reference groups. Using multilevel data on 5,491 Icelandic
adolescents in 83 school-communities, wefindconsistent support
for the theory. We show that the effects of economic deprivation
on adolescent anger, normlessness, delinquency, violence and
subjective relative family status are weak in school-communities
where economic deprivation is common, while the effects are
significantly stronger in school-communities where economic
deprivation is rare.
The theory of relative deprivation combines enduring sociologioal themes
that cut across levels of analysis. The theory focuses on the effects of
deprivation on individual behavior, attitude and well-being. It emphasizes
that the social context specifies the effects of deprivation on individual
outcomes. Thus, relative deprivation implies that economic deprivation
has relative, as opposed to absolute, effects on experience, because the
standard of living among the person's reference groups contextualizes
how the person experiences deprivation (Merton and Rossi 1968;
Runciman 1966). Perceiving affluence among reference groups tends to
raise the person's aspirations and a sense of entitlement to a comparable
The preparation of this article was aided by grants from the University ofIceland Research
Fund and the Scandinavian Council for Criminology. We thank Sigrun Olafsdottir
for helpful comments on an earlier draft, and Stefan Jansen, Huida Orradóttir and
Bryndis Björk Ásgeirsdóttir for providing us with supplementary data used to examine
measurement validity of focal measures. An earlier version of this article was presented at
the 2007 Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Direct correspondance to Jon
Gunnar Bernburg, Department of Sociology, University of Iceland, Cimli Building, 101
Reykjavik, Iceland. E-mail: [email protected].
© The University of North Caroiina Press
Social Forces 87(3). March 2009
1224 • Social Forces 87(3)
Standard of living. Hence, when people think that referenced others enjoy
more affluence than themselves, they tend to feel a sense of injustice and
frustration. Furthermore, highlighting the broader social context, theorists
argue that relative deprivation is particularly salient when the cultural and
structural context promotes values and beliefs that stress egalitarianism,
equal opportunity and individual achievement because such features
encourage people to compare themselves to affluent others, regardless of
their own backgrounds (Blau and Blau 1982; Krahn, Hartnagel and Gartrell
1986; Merton 1968; Passas 1997; Runciman 1966). Egalitarian values and
beliefs thus create a sense of opportunity and deservingness, bolstering
aspirations and expectations of economic prosperity, and, therefore,
promote a sense of injustice and frustration among the impoverished.
While relative deprivation theory has a long history in social research,
inspiring analyses of various topics, including satisfaction among soldiers
(Stouffer et al. 1949) and workers (Wilensky 1963), historical changes
in public perceptions of social justice (Runciman 1966), political revolt
(Davies 1962) and experiments in social psychology (Crosby 1976), an
important application of relative deprivation theory has been a focus
on the effect of relative deprivation on deviant behavior (Agnew 1999;
Agnew et al. 1996; Blau and Blau 1982; Merton 1968; Merton and
Rossi 1968; Stiles, Liu, and Kaplan 2000) and poor well-being (Yngwe
2003). This literature argues that relative deprivation that results from
unfavorable social comparisons can increase the likelihood of violent
and criminal behavior because relative deprivation often produces anger,
frustration and a weak commitment to the social norms.
Importantly, this theoretical approach implies a specific pattern of
interaction effect that is rarely tested in research. It proposes that the
effect of economic (absolute) deprivation on individual outcomes such as
anger, weak commitment to social norms (normlessness), and delinquent
and violent behavior should be directly proportional to the standard of
living of the person's reference groups. That is, the effect of economic
deprivation on such outcomes should be strong among persons whose
reference groups are affluent, because they are more likely to experience
unfavorable social comparisons (relative deprivation), while the effects of
economic deprivation on individual outcomes should be weaker among
those whose reference groups are less affluent. This proposition is rarely
examined empirically although it is central to relative deprivation theory.
The current study tests this proposition by using multilevel data on
Icelandic adolescents. Specifically, we examine whether the effect of
economic deprivation on adolescent anger, normlessness, delinquency
and violence is contingent on the standard of living in the local schoolcommunity We focus on adolescents because it allows us to assume
that the standard of living of peers and other members of the local
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1225
comnnunity connprise an important frame of reference for the person. Thus,
impoverished adolescents living in affluent communities should be more
likely to experience relative deprivation than impoverished adolescents
living in impoverished communities (Johnstone 1978). By implication, the
effects of economic deprivation on adolescent anger, normlessness, and
delinquent and violent behavior should be weak in communities where
economic deprivation is common while the effects should be substantially
stronger in communities where economic deprivation is rare.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we add
to the scant research on relative deprivation and individual deviance. This
research has been limited in scope and application. In particular, the
literature consists of rare and incomplete attempts to test for interaction
effects. Thus, only a handful of studies have examined whether the effect
of economic deprivation on deviant behavior is contingent on affluence
among the person's reference groups and the findings are inconclusive.
Johnstone (1978) and Jarjoura and Tripplett (1997) found that low status
youths living in high status communities were more likely to commit
criminal acts than low status youths living in low status communities, while
Tittle and Meier (1991 ) found no support for such interaction effects. Rather
than examining interaction effects, research on relative deprivation and
deviance consists mainly of two types of studies. The first type has focused
on the effect of economic inequality on crime rates (Blau and Blau 1982;
Krahn, Hartnagel and Gartrell 1986; Messner 1989; Messner and Tardiff
1986). But, due to the aggregate-level nature of this research, it has been
unable to link relative deprivation with individual deviant behavior (Stiles,
Liu and Kaplan 2000). The second type includes research on the straindelinquency link. This research has found various subjective measures of
relative deprivation to have a positive effect on youth delinquency (Agnew
et al. 1996; Baron 2003, 2006; Stiles, Liu and Kaplan 2000).
Second, we examine relative deprivation theory in a more
comprehensive manner than most prior studies. Theorists have argued
that relative deprivation tends to produce anger, negative self-feelings
and normlessness, and that relative deprivation increases the likelihood
of deviant behavior (Agnew 1999; Blau and Blau 1982; Merton 1968;
Merton and Rossi 1968; Messner and Tardiff 1986; Runciman 1966;
Stiles, Liu and Kaplan 2000). Accordingly, affluence among reference
groups should interact with the effects of economic deprivation on
anger and normlessness in the same way as it interacts with the effect
of economic deprivation on delinquent and violent behavior. To our
knowledge, the research has not examined such interaction effects,
despite the theoretical significance doing so. Rather, prior research on
interaction effects has examined deviant outcomes only. The current
study goes beyond prior work by examining whether the effects
1226 • Social Forces S7{3)
of econonnic deprivation on adolescent anger, normlessness, and
delinquent and violent behavior are contingent on the standard of living
in the local community.
Third, we explore the relationship between objective economic
deprivation and subjective relative deprivation. Prior research has rarely
focused on this relationship (see Agnew 1999), while a few studies have
examined the effect of subjective relative deprivation on youth deviance
(Agnew et al. 1996; Baron 2003, 2006; Burton et al. 1994; Stiles, Liu
and Kaplan 2000). We point out that, according to relative deprivation
theory, the relationship between objective deprivation and subjective
relative deprivation is dependent on the standard of living of reference
groups. Specifically, in the case of adolescents, the standard of living of
peers and other members of the school-community may influence how
adolescents perceive their own standard of living relative to typical others.
This argument provides an important hypothesis that we test - that the
negative effect of economic deprivation on subjective relative family status
(perceived economic status of own family relative to other families in
Iceland) should be stronger in communities where economic deprivation
is rare than in communities where economic deprivation is common.
Fourth, the research setting provides a unique opportunity to
examine relative deprivation theory. Icelandic schools are encapsulated
in small, local communities in which adolescent social participation
and neighborhood residence are tightly coupled. In contrast to many
other countries, the great majority of Icelandic adolescents attend
small, neighborhood-based, public schools operated by the county
governments. Children and adolescents are selected into the schools
based on where they live, regardless of social and economic background.
Hence adolescents are dependent on the school-community for peer
companionship, status achievement and leisure activity (Bernburg and
Thorlindsson 2007). This universal organization of the schools in Iceland
makes it particularly plausible to assume that the school-community
context affects adolescent proximity to referenced others.
Finally, Iceland is a highly relevant setting in which to apply relative
deprivation theory, because it is characterized by societal features that
produce a fertile ground for upward social comparisons, namely, strong
egalitarian values, upward social mobility and economic prosperity
(Bjarnason 1974; Olafsson 1999; Thorlindsson 1988; Tomason 1980).^
Hence, we expect relative deprivation to be salient among impoverished
youths in Iceland. Moreover, in order to establish the general value of
any social theory, it needs to be tested in different social settings. In this
sense, Iceland provides an additional setting to test the generalizability
of relative deprivation theory.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1227
Reference Groups and Relative Deprivation
Examining whether the effect of deprivation on individual outcomes is
contingent on the affluence of referenced others introduces a difficult
research challenge. While such a test requires individual-level data
on economic status as well as behavioral, emotional and attitudinal
outcomes, it also requires data on the standard of living among the
person's reference groups. However, identifying the person's reference
groups involves complex issues (Petersen 2004). Theorists argue that
people compare their status to others with whom they perceive as
sharing important similarities or with whom they identify in fundamental
respects (Levene and Moreland 1987; Merton and Rossi 1968; Runciman
1966). Referenced others may be friends, colleagues or members of the
local community, but they also constitute, in part, abstract ideas about
what is normal, average and fair (Schor 1999). Moreover, the salience of
persons or groups as possible targets of comparison depends on "the
availability of information regarding the target's standing on dimensions
relevant to the comparison." (Levene and Moreland 1987:112) Identifying
reference groups thus raises empirical issues concerning the person's
(or the group's), structural position, proximity to referenced others, and/
or perception of their standard of living, as well as issues concerning the
characteristics of the broader cultural and structural context. Therefore,
different social groups (age groups, ethnic groups, occupational groups,
etc.) may require different approaches to conceptualizing and tackling the
person's reference groups.
We assume that when the target population consists of adolescents, the
standard of living in the local community, in particular among same-aged
peers, is salient in influencing the adolescent's proximity to and perception
of referenced others (Johnstone 1978), even if the local community often
has less relevance for adults (Schor 1999; Yngwe et al. 2003).
Mechanisms of Social Comparison
We suggest two theoretical mechanisms that explain how the standard
of living in the school-community may condition the effect of economic
deprivation on relative deprivation, and affect subjects' anger, normlessness,
and delinquent and violent behavior. First, relative deprivation may result
from comparison with other members of the local community, in particular
with same-aged peers and their families. Thus, impoverished adolescents
in affluent schools are more likely than those in less affluent schools to
feel a sense of deprivation relative to referenced others.
Second, to the extent that the local community provides a window
through which adolescents learn about the standard of living of other
members of society, the standard of living of peers and other families in
1228 • Social Forces 87{3)
Figure 1. Hypothesized Interaction Effects
Level 2
Economic Deprivation in the Schooicommunitv
Path B (-)
Level 1
Level 1
Economic
Deprivation
Path A (+)
Outcome Variables
Anger
Normlessness
Deiinquency
Violence
the local community may influence their perception of the standard of
living of typical others. Thus, the community context may influence beliefs
about what is average or normal (Schor 1999). Belonging to a community
where economic deprivation is common may reduce perceived affluence
of typical others and hence may reduce the tendency for economic
deprivation to result in relative deprivation.
While these two mechanisms differ, both imply that economic
deprivation has weaker effects on adolescent outcomes such as anger,
normlessness, and delinquent and violent behavior in communities where
economic deprivation is common than in communities where economic
deprivation is rare. The first mechanism implies that the weakening of
the effects reflect a more favorable comparison with peers, while the
second mechanism implies that the weakening of the effects reflect a
more favorable comparison with what is perceived as an average standard
of living. As shown in Figure 1, we hypothesize that the level of economic
deprivation in the schooi-community moderates (Path B) the individual-level
effect (Path A) of economic deprivation on adolescent anger, normlessness,
delinquency and vioience. Such interaction effects are called cross-level
interaction effects (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992).
Furthermore, relative deprivation theory implies that the effect of
objective deprivation on perceived or subjective relative deprivation
should be contingent on the standard of living of referenced others.
We test this proposition by focusing on the second mechanism. This
mechanism implies that the standard of living of peers in the schoolcommunity influences how adolescents perceive their own standard
of living relative to typical others in the society. Accordingly, uve expect
economic deprivation to have a stronger effect on subjective relative family
status in schooi-communities where economic deprivation is rare than in
school-communities where deprivation is common.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1229
The Influence of Relative Deprivation on Anger, Normlessness and Deviance
Theorists argue that relative deprivation tends to produce anger as well
as weak commitment to the social norms, which in turn increase the
likelihood of deviant behavior (Agnew 1999; Blau and Blau 1982; Canache
1996; Merton 1968; Merton and Rossi 1968; Messner and Tardiff 1986;
Runciman 1966). Relative deprivation may tend to result in anger because
the person is deprived of what others are perceived to have the opportunity
to obtain (Blau and Blau 1982; Burton et al. 1994; Merton 1968; Runciman
1966). As experimental research indicates, feelings of unfairness tend to
produce anger and aggression (Crosby 1976). Perceived injustice may also
undermine commitment to the social norms (Reis 1987). Also, the effect of
relative deprivation on anger and normlessness may be driven by perceived
goal blockage. Merton (1968) has argued that heightened aspirations in
the context of disadvantage (blocked opportunities) constitutes strain to
which individuals may adapt by developing a utilitarian attitude toward the
social norms (Menard 1995), and Agnew (1992) has argued that perceived
goal blockage often results in anger.
Studies have found a positive relationship between measures of
subjective relative deprivation and youth delinquency (Agnew et al. 1996;
Baron 2003, 2006; Stiles, Liu and Kaplan 2000; for an exception, see
Burton et al. 1994), and experimental evidence indicates that upward social
comparisons can produce hostility and frustration (Testa and Major 1990).
Consistent with such results, survey research has shown an association
between low social status and adolescent alienation, aggression (Wright
et al. 1999), and normlessness (Menard 1995). More research exists on
the effects of anger and normlessness on deviance. Anger has been
shown to influence adolescent violence (Agnew and White 1992; Aseltine,
Gore and Gordon 2000; Sigfusdottir, Farkas and Silver 2004), presumably
because anger increases the individual's level of grievance, creates a
motivation for retaliation, energizes the individual for corrective action,
and lowers inhibitions (Agnew 1992). Normlessness has been shown to
influence deviant behavior, presumably because it reduces internal control
and social control (Bernburg and Thorlindsson 2007; Kingery, Biafora and
Zimmerman 1996; Menard 1995; Thorlindsson and Bjarnason 1998).
Cultural and Structural Characteristics of the Research Setting
Relative deprivation theory argues that the broad patterns of culture
and social structure influence how people select their reference groups.
While people tend to compare their status to the status of those that they
perceive as sharing similarities with themselves, macrosocial patterns,
in turn, shape people's perception of similarity. Specifically, relative
deprivation is held to be particularly salient when the societal context
1230 • Social Forces 87(3)
emphasizes egalitarianism and equal opportunity, because such beliefs
motivate upward social comparisons (Krahn, Hartnagel and Gartrell 1986;
Merton 1968; Merton and Rossi 1968; Parkin 1971; Passas 1997; Stack
1984; Runciman 1966). Economic prosperity, upward social mobility, and
a low level of class based segregation are also held to motivate upward
social comparisons (Runciman 1966), as well as the visibility of affluent
people (Agnew 1999).
All of these features characterize Icelandic society. Research indicates
that Icelanders strongly value social equality (Bjarnason 1974; Olafsson
1999; Thorlindsson 1988; Tomason 1980). Tomason (1980:195) argues that
egalitarianism is a pervasive value that has been held throughout Icelandic
history, even while Icelanders recognize the existence of "vaguely defined
social classes" and that occupations vary in social prestige and income. In
Tomason's words, "...there are few things Icelanders believe more about
themselves than that theirs is a country where there is equality among
interacting individuals and equality of opportunity, even if some people
have more money and more education than others." Supporting this view,
cross-national surveys have shown that a high percentage of Icelanders
value economic equality, relative to other European nations (Olafsson 1999).
Research indicates that Iceland has been characterized by a high level
of upward social mobility in the past few decades. Thorlindsson (1988)
found a considerable inflow of students into college education from
all other educational levels, where only about one in every four college
students had a father with college education. Moreover, in recent years
Icelanders have experienced a spurt of economic prosperity (Statistics
Iceland 2007). As Runciman (1966) argues, upward mobility and economic
prosperity nurture the belief in equality, as well as bolstering aspirations
and expectations among youth. Increased purchasing power, a highly
publicized success of Icelandic companies on the international scene, and
high salaries of executives and leading businessmen have also created a
fertile ground for upward (unfavorable) social comparisons in Icelandic
society. We suspect that glamorizing of material success in the media has
raised the aspirations of young people. Finally, the levels of poverty and
economic inequality are quite modest in Iceland relative to many European
countries (Statistics Iceland 2007). Thus, severe economic deprivation is
relatively unusual in Iceland, which should enhance the salience of relative
deprivation among the impoverished in Iceland.
Data
The data come from a national, population survey of Icelandic adolescents.
The full sample consisted of all students born in 1990 and 1991 (15 and 16
years old), attending the compulsory 9* and 10'*^ grade of the secondary
Relative Deprivation Theory «1231
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
Standard
Deviation
Minimum
Value
1.32
4.60
.52
.08
.02
.28
2.99
1.79
-.00
1.61
.57
.99
.50
.27
.12
.45
.76
.70
.61
1.02
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
-.23
1
5
7
1
1
1
1
5
4
10.26
7
1.35
.23
.02
.08
.29
.11
.42
.02
.06
.10
1.18
0
0
0
.09
1.74
1
.12
.40
.56
Mean
Level 1 Variables (N = 5491)
Economic deprivation
Subjective relative economic status
Female
Residential mobility
Immigrant status
Family disruption
Normiessness
Anger
Delinquency
Violence
Level 2 Variables (N = 83)
Community economic deprivation
Rural location
Immigrant concentration
Residential mobility
Family disruption
Maximum
Value
school. Anonymous questionnaires were administered to all students
present in class in March 2006. Questionnaires were distributed in sealed
envelopes by teachers and research assistants. A total of 129 schools
(96 percent of all the schools in Iceland) participated in the survey. Valid
questionnaires were obtained from 7,430 respondents, about 84 percent
of the population of the two cohorts. No attempts were made to reach
students that were absent on the day of the survey.^ To ensure a sufficient
number of respondents in each school-community, schools with less than
20 respondents, all located in rural areas, were excluded from the analysis
(46 schools). Also, we excluded 1,002 respondents who did not attend their
local neighborhood school. The final analysis includes 5,491 respondents
(51 percent female) in 83 public schools. On average, the school-level
data is based on about 71 respondents from each school, with a standard
deviation of about 48. The largest school had 286 respondents, the
smallest had 21 respondents (11 schools had less than 40 respondents,
including six schools with 20 to 29 respondents).
Dependent Variables
Descriptive statistics for all variables are reported in Table 1.
/lA7c/e/-(Derogatis, Lipman and Covi 1973) is measured with the mean score
on five questions about how often subjects experienced bad temper/
irritability, fits of temper, whether they had wanted to break or smash
things, whether they got into arguments, and whether they had screamed
1232 . Socio/forces 87(3)
or thrown things during the week prior to the survey (Chronbach's alpha =
.84). The scales range from 1 (never) to 4 (often).
Normlessness is the mean score on eight items for weak commitment
to social norms and a utilitarian attitude toward rules (Bernburg and
Thorlindsson 2007): "You can break most rules if they don't seem to
apply," "I follow whatever rules I want to follow," "In fact, there are very
few absolute rules in life," "It's hard to trust anything, because everything
is subject to change," "In fact, nobody knows what is expected of her or
him," "One can never be certain of anything in this life," "Sometimes you
have to break the rules in order to succeed," "Following rules does not
guarantee success." Cronbach's alpha = .78. The scales range from 1
(very much disagree) to 5 (very much agree).
Delinquency is measured with nine questions about delinquency during
the past 12 months. Respondents were asked how many times in the
past 12 months they had stolen something worth less than 5,000 kroner
(about $65), stolen something worth more than 5,000 kroner, burglarized a
building or a car to steal something, damaged things that did not belong to
them, and committed another criminal offense. Response categories for
these items ranged from "never" to "18 times or more." Also, respondents
were asked how many times they had been interrogated at a police station
due to a suspicion of crime, confessed to a crime that they had committed,
refused to confess to a crime that they had committed, and how many
times they had been adjudicated for a crime. Response categories for
these items ranged from "never" to "six times or more." All the items were
standardized and then averaged (Chronbach's alpha = .81).
Violence is the mean score on seven questions about aggressive and
violent behavior during in the past 12 months. We asked subjects if they
had punched someone, kicked someone, hit someone, shoved someone,
engaged in physical fighting, threatened someone with violence. We also
included a subjective question about using physical violence (Chronbach's
alpha = .93). The response categories ranged from 1 (never) to 10 (18
times or more). Previous research has found good construct validity for
all of the above mentioned indexes (Bernburg and Thorlindsson 2007;
Sigfusdottiretal. 2004).
Subjective Relative Family Economic Status. Following Baron (2003, 2006),
respondents were asked to rate the economic status of their family
relative to other families in Iceland, on the scale of 1 (much worse off)
to 7 (much better off).
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1233
Economic Deprivation
While research has produced mixed results concerning the effects of
parents' social and economic status on adolescent deviant behavior
(Braihwaite 1981; Dunaway et al. 2000), studies tend to show an effect
when focusing on parental economic deprivation or poverty (Bernburg
and Krohn 2003; Bjerk 2007; Farnworth et al. 1994). Hence, we focus
on economic deprivation rather than parents' socioeconomic status.
The current research strategy (see Figure 1) requires that we measure
economic deprivation on two levels, the individual-level (Level 1) and the
school-community level (Level 2).
Economic Deprivation (Level 1)
Four survey items tackle economic hardship at home and inability of
parents to pay for basic necessities (Chronbach's alpha = .77): "Your
parents' financial status is bad," "Your parents cannot afford to own and
operate a car," "Your parents hardly have enough money to pay for basic
necessities (e.g. food, housing, phone)," and "Your parents cannot afford
the type of leisure activity that you would most prefer to practice (e.g.,
music or sports)." The response categories ranged from 1 (almost never)
to 5 (almost always). We combined the items by using the mean score on
the four items. Relative frequencies for individual items are reported in the
Appendix. We note that supplementary research of measurement validity
indicates a strong association between the current measure of economic
deprivation and parents' reporting of economic deprivation.^ Prior research
has found similar results (Huston, McLoyd and Coll 1994).
Community Economic Deprivation (Level 2)
Economic deprivation in the school-community is measured with the school
mean on the economic deprivation measure described above. Thus, this
measure tackles the standard of living of same-aged peers in the schoolcommunity, which is arguably an important reference group for adolescents
who, again, tend to be dependent on peers in the school-community Given
the study's focus on reference groups, this measure is more appropriate
than, say, a measure tackling the aggregate economic status of all residents
that live within the geographical boundaries of the school-community. Again,
the current study includes the majority of the adolescent population in each
school-community. Therefore, we are confident that the current measure
of community economic deprivation represents quite well the standard of
living of same-aged peers in the school-community. In fact, a supplementary
analysis of measurement validity supports this claim. Thus, the current
community economic deprivation measure is strongly correlated with the
mean income of households with children in the school-community."
1234 . Soc/a/Forces 87(3)
Table 1 and the Appendix show substantial differences in economic
deprivation among the school-communities. For example, the school
proportion of respondents saying that their parents' financial situation is
"sometimes," "often" or "almost always" bad ranges from 3 percent to 45
percent, with an average of 17 percent (see Appendix).^
Control Variables
Level 1 Control Variables
A few control variables are included in the individual-level models below,
based on prior delinquency research (Knoester and Haynie 2005; Sampson
and Laub 1994). A dummy variable for respondent's Sex was coded "V'for
females and "0" for males. Residential stability is coded "1 " is respondents
indicate having moved to a new neighborhood/community in the past 12
months, and "0" otherwise. Family disruption is coded " 1 " if respondents
indicate not living with both parents and "0" otherwise. Immigrant status is
coded "1 " if respondents indicate that both parents are not born in Iceland
and "0" otherwise.
Level 2 Control Variables
Based on the existing research on community context and youth
delinquency (Bernburg and Thorlindsson 2007; Gottfredson, McNeil and
Gottfredson 1991), we control for the direct, contextual effects of the
following community-level variables (see Equation 2.0 below): Family
disruption; the school proportion of respondents not living with both
parents. Residential mobility; the school proportion of respondents that
has moved to another community during the past 12 months. Immigrant
concentration; the school proportion of respondents indicating that both
parents are born in another country. Rural location is coded " 1 " for rural
area and "0" otherwise.
Statistical Analysis
We use hierarchical linear regression, which is the appropriate statistical
tool for analyzing linear effects in nested, multilevel data (Bryk and
Raudenbush 1992). The analysis is conducted in HLM 5 (Raudenbush,
Bryk and Cheong 2001).
The baseline Level 1 (individual-level) specification:
Yy = ßoj + ßij(Economic Deprivation¡|) -I- P2j(Female¡j) +
p3j(Residential Mobility¡j) + ß4j(Family Disruption¡j) + ß(lmmigrant) + r ' '
where Y. is a value on a dependent variable for individual / in community
/. Separate models are estimated for each dependent variable, that is.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1235
normlessness, anger, delinquency, and violence, ß^^ is the mean value of
the dependent variable in community/; ß^^ is a slope coefficient for the
effect of an individual-level variable (grand-mean centered) in community
y; r¡j is the error term. Our focus is on yS,, the slope effect of economic
deprivation (Path A in Figure 1). ß^ through ß^ are included for statistical
control.
The Level 2 (school-community) specification:
ßoj = Too + Yio(Comnnunity Economic Deprivationj) + Y2o(Rural Locationj) -lY3o(lmmigrant Concentrationj) + Y4o(Residential Mobilityj) -I-
(2)
Y5o(Family Disruptionj) -I- UQ,
ßii — Yio + Y i i ( C o m m u n i t y E c o n o m i c Deprivation,) -f Uij
P2j = 720 + U2i
(2.2)
p3j = Y30 + U31
P4i = Y40 + U4j
(2.3)
(2.4)
p5i = Y50 + Ugj
(2.5)
(2.1)
where ß^. is the mean of Y in community/ (adjusted for Level 1 effects),
•y^Q is an intercept and /¿^j is a random term for variation among the
communities in mean value of Y Equation 2 estimates the contextual
effects of community characteristics (grand-mean centered) on the
dependent variable. Although these direct, contextual effects are not the
focus of the analysis, such effects have been found in prior work and
should be included for statistical control.
Equations 2.1 through 2.5 are slopes-as-outcomes models, /ß,. through
ß^. are Level 1 coefficients in community/; 7,^ through yj^are intercepts
(average slopes across communities) and /X|^through ¡x^. represent random
variation in the slopes between communities. Our focus is on the crosslevel interaction effect in Equation 2.1. In this equation, the individual-level
effect of economic deprivation on the dependent variable is regressed
on community economic deprivation. The term y,, denotes the effect of
community economic deprivation on the Level 1 slope effect of economic
deprivation on the dependent variable (Path B, Figure 1). A significant,
negative coefficient (y,,) indicates that the effect of economic deprivation
on the dependent variable varies inversely with the community level of
economic deprivation, as we have hypothesized. We also estimate an
additional model for each dependent variable, examining whether the
slope effect ß^. has a significant between-communities variation {^l^) in the
first place, prior to controlling for community economic deprivation (that
is, we also estimate Equation 2.1 excluding y^). A significant betweencommunities variance in the slope effect provides empirical support for
attempting to explain this variation.
1236 . Soda/Forces 87(3)
Results
We have hypothesized that the individual-level effects of economic
deprivation on anger, normlessness, and delinquent and violent behavior
should become weaker as economic deprivation is more common in
the school-community. These hypotheses are examined in Table 2. Two
models are estimated for each dependent variable. The first model
includes only direct, non-conditional effects. This model thus shows
whether the individual-level effect of economic deprivation on the
dependent variable has a significant between-communities variation,
that is, whether the random effect is significant (in which case we have
empirical support for our attempt to explain this variation). The second
model examines the cross-level interaction effect, that is, whether
community economic deprivation influences the individual-level slope
effect of economic deprivation on the dependent variable (Equation 2.1 ).
Again, we predict that community economic deprivation should have
a negative effect on the slope effect of economic deprivation on each
dependent variable (Path B, Figure 1).
Results in Table 2 lend consistent support to the hypotheses depicted
in Figure 1, showing that the effects of economic deprivation on anger,
normlessness, delinquency and violence are significantly weaker in schoolcommunities where economic deprivation is more common (Path B, Figure
1). First, consider the results for anger. Model la shows that economic
deprivation has a significant, individual-level effect on anger. The random
term associated with this effect is statistically significant, which indicates
that the effect of economic deprivation on anger varies significantly across
communities. Furthermore, as predicted. Model 1 b shows that community
economic deprivation has a negative impact on the effect of economic
deprivation on anger (y,, = -.54). The first column in Table 3 illustrates the
substantive meaning of this cross-level interaction effect. The illustration
shows that the predicted effect of economic deprivation on anger ranges
from .29 in communities where economic deprivation is rare to .09 in
communities where deprivation is common. This finding thus indicates a
substantial cross-level interaction effect.
We find even stronger results for delinquency and violence. In models
3a and 4a, the effects of economic deprivation on both delinquency and
violence, respectively, have significant between-communities variances.
Moreover, models 3b and 4b show that community economic deprivation
has a negative influence the effects of economic deprivation on delinquency
and violence, respectively. Again, the strength of the interaction effects is
illustrated in Table 3. Thus, in communities where economic deprivation
is common, the predicted effects of economic deprivation on both
delinquent and violent behavior are about zero, while the effects are quite
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1237
substantial in communities where economic deprivation is rare (.21 and
.30 for delinquency and violence, respectively).
Results for normlessness in Model 2a and Model 2b lend partial
support to our thesis. Model 2b shows that community affluence has a
significant, negative effect on the slope effect of economic deprivation on
normlessness (y^ = -.42). However, Model 2a does not find a significant
CO
CNJ CM
CO CO
S o § § S
c
c«
"S
60
*
CNI
CO CT)
C I CO
§ o §
§ ss
u
s
O
O
o
•.-CsJOOCO
C M O C O O C N J O
u
I
S
r-.-
'S- e n o o
CO
CD CD m CD CX3
o CD CD o CO
er
u
ië
O
-a
c
O -^ <J5 OO
•*- O ^ O
O C5 O CD
-a
Ë
(U
o
u
î
a
V
-a
?
S
CM
^
C
<U
3
o
.2
.2 *.<
£
g
.y T3
E o>
o .=
13
Q S ^ §- ¿ 8 E o-
i
o>=* E _
_ E — E "
t <u 0) ^
Ä :.CL
Oi £
Q
: ^ 0)
> oPc e £ c e ù ; . £
rt "" -^
III
*•
flj
^
§ *
il. « q
CL
2
a.
Ü -^ V
O W
Z
Í-I
CL(
1238 . Social Forces 87(3)
between-community variance in the effect of economic deprivation on
normlessness. Hence the data do not support our attempt to explain
differences in the individual-level effect of economic deprivation on
normlessness across communities. Nevertheless, the cross-level
interaction effect for normlessness is significant and negative, as predicted.
CD C3 CO CO
•<— CO r-.- C3
C3 C3 C3
o
u
u
î
oo to
es
CO
oc
i n •<—
CM CO
(U
o
o
o
Oí
t
o
î
CO
CO
>
oo o oo
ro CN CM
O O CO
CO CsJ CO CD .»—
T - CM CM C3
o
B
CD r-^— cr>
C3 CO
er
Î
Î
•>-
CM
.
CO CNJ h ^
•<-
o
-o
CO ^D O>
T - C3 CM
'S 'S §
CM
>
ci
j
V
O
'ç-
X
Î
CO
V
.g g 3 «
, ^ E "S- S 3
S?-= E <» ro
S- 'S 'SJ
Ä o >?
™ :5 =^ .S'jM g
u ) ^ c o c O ) O i 3 c Q ^ r o
'••^
8
LU
V
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1239
Table 3: Illustrating the Interaction Effects
Community Economic Deprivation
(Grand-Mean Centered)
Anger Normlessness Delinquency Violence
l ^ ^ l J m i n j m ü n i ( - : i 7 f „ ' T i r . _ -Jj. -29 ...L..^23J_; , „ _ _ _ , 2 1
^.30 J J
One staridard deviation belovy mean (-.11)
.27
.2{
_
.18 ^
.25^
One standard^deviation above rneaj;[^(+.ji)_
^^iid.arddèvÎatipnsVb-ove'mean,(4-".22)-"
.15
'.09
^11
.06
^8^
.03'"'
.07^^
'^-.02 ' ]
Note:*The table shows the predicted Level 1 slope effects of economic deprivation
on the outcome variables at different levels of community economic deprivation.
Observed minimum value of community economic deprivation is employed to stay
within the range of observed values on this variable.
Additionally, a few significant direct effects are reported for the
community variables (Equation 2), but these effects are inconsistent
across the dependent variables.^ Thus, community economic deprivation
has a significant effect on anger, rural location has a significant effect on
normlessness, and immigrant concentration has a significant effect on
delinquent behavior.
In sum, the findings support the predicted pattern of interaction
effects across the dependent variables, that is, anger, normlessness, and
delinquent and violent behavior (Path B, Figure 1 ). The effects of economic
deprivation on these outcomes are weak in communities where economic
deprivation is common but substantially stronger in communities where
economic deprivation is rare.
Model Robustness
To examine the robustness of the results in Table 2, we estimate a few
additional models (results available from the authors upon request). First,
controlling for other community characteristics in the slopes-as-outcome
part of the models (Equation 2.1), that is, rural location, immigrant
concentration, residential mobility and family disruption, has no impact
on the findings. The other community characteristics do not exhibit any
cross-level interaction effects.
Second, prior research indicates that poverty influences delinquency in
part through disrupted family processes, that is, family conflict and weak
ties between adolescents and their parents (Sampson and Laub 1994).
Such mechanisms do not contradict relative deprivation theory - poverty
may influence adolescent deviance through both relative deprivation and
family processes. Nevertheless, to deal with potential spuriousness, we
re-estimate the Level 1 models (Equation 1 ), controlling for ties to parents
(combining six items about how difficult or easy it is to receive support
from parents, including warmth and caring, conversions about private
1240 . Social Forces 87(3)
issues, advice, etc.) and two indicators of family conflict (dummy variables
for parent-child arguments and parent-parent arguments during the past
12 months). The substantive results shown in Table 2 are unaffected by
this procedure, although the average effects of economic deprivation on
the dependent variables are somewhat reduced, as would be expected
(not shown in table).
Finally, impoverished adolescents living in affluent school-communities
may be more likely to experience social isolation and exclusion from
their peers than impoverished adolescents living in less affluent schoolcommunities. Hence, economic deprivation might have a stronger impact
on anger and other negative outcomes in school-communities where
economic deprivation is rare, even in the absence of relative deprivation.
To deal with this issue, we estimate the models by controlling for social
ties to peers (combining five items about how difficult or easy it is to
receive support from peers) and bullying by peers (respondents were
asked how many times they had been attacked and/or hurt by a group of
kids during the past 12 months). The substantive results are unaffected
by the addition of these control variables.
Subjective Economic Status of Family Relative to Other Families in Iceland
According to one of the theoretical mechanisms proposed above, the
standard of living in the school-community influences how adolescents
perceive their standard of living relative to typical others in the society.
Accordingly, the effect of economic deprivation on subjective relative
economic status of family (i.e., perceived economic status of own
family relative to other families in Iceland) should be stronger where
economic deprivation is rare, but weaker where economic deprivation
is common. Results in Table 4 support this hypothesis. Thus, Model la
shows a significant between-community variation in the negative effect
of economic deprivation on subjective relative status. Moreover, Model
1b supports our prediction, showing that the negative effect of economic
deprivation on subjective relative family status is significantly weaker in
communities where economic deprivation is common. The predicted
effect of economic deprivation on subjective relative status ranges from
about -.50 in schools where economic deprivation is common to about
-.72 in schools where economic deprivation is rare.
Conclusion
The theory of relative deprivation portrays a genuinely sociological approach
that illustrates how the social context influences individual outcomes. It
has been applied widely in social research, and the link between relative
deprivation and deviance is a classic subject in sociological theory (Merton
Relative Deprivation Theory «1241
Table 4: Hierarchical Linear Regression of Subjective Economic Status of
Family Relative to Other Families in Iceland
Level 1 Variables (N = 5491)
Economic deprivation [ß)
intercept (yoo)
Slope-as-Outcome (N = 83)
Effect of community
Economic deprivation on the effect of
economic deprivation (y,,)
Proportion of Level 1 Variance Explained
Model 1a
Random
Fixed
Model 1b
Fixed
Random
-.61***
3.42***
-.62***
3.42***
.058***
.015***
—
.58*
.13
.13
.058***
.015***
Note: Fixed effects are unstandardized coefficients. Random effects are level 2
variance components. Significance tests are based on robust standard errors.
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)
1968). The current study lends support to relative deprivation theory in
several ways. First, findings support the central proposition that the effects
of economic deprivation on individual outcomes are directly proportional
to the standard of living of the person's reference groups (Johnstone 1978;
Merton and Rossi 1968; Runciman 1966; Stouffer et al. 1949; Yngwe et
al. 2003, 2005). The effects of economic deprivation on adolescent anger,
normlessness, and delinquent and violent behavior are weak in schoolcommunities where economic deprivation is common, while the effects
are significantly and substantially stronger in school-communities where
economic deprivation is rare.
The findings support relative deprivation theory in a more comprehensive
manner than most prior research. Although scholars (Agnew 1999; Blau
and Blau 1982; Canache 1996; Merton 1968; Merton and Rossi 1968;
Messner and Tardiff 1986; Runciman 1966) have argued that relative
deprivation often results in anger and normlessness, pointing out the role
that these variables play in mediating the effect of relative deprivation on
deviant behavior, empirical research has rarely included these variables.
Moreover, although relative deprivation theory implies that the effect of
objective deprivation on subjective relative status should be contingent
on the affluence of reference groups, such interaction effects are rarely
examined empirically. Therefore, it is important that our results lend
consistent support to the theory, revealing a similar pattern of interaction
effects across key concepts, namely, anger, normlessness, delinquency,
violence and subjective relative status.
We have argued that the Icelandic research setting provides a unique
opportunity to examine relative deprivation theory. There are two reasons
1242 • Soda/Forces 87(3)
for this. First, the assumption that peers and families in the schoolcommunity comprise an important frame of reference for adolescents is
particularly plausible in the Icelandic setting. Icelandic schools comprise
small, local communities in which adolescent social participation and
neighborhood residence are tightly coupled. Using these sociologically
meaningful aggregate-level units is an important methodological strength,
especially given that community research often uses questionable criteria
in drawing the boundaries of community-level units (see Bursik 1988).
Second, because Iceland is characterized by a strong emphasis on values
and beliefs that stress egalitarianism, equal opportunity and individual
achievement (Bjarnason 1974; Olafsson 1999; Statistics Iceland 2007;
Thorlindsson 1988; Tomason 1980), it provides a societal setting in which
we would expect relative deprivation theory to be highly relevant (Merton
1968; Messner and Rosenfeld 1994; Passas 1997; Runciman 1966).
However, we stress that the unique characteristics of the lelandic
setting should not be seen to limit the general value of the findings.
To the contrary, it is crucial for the general value, or generalizability of
any social theory that it be applied it in different societal settings. As
Lucas (2003:239) has pointed out, theoretical generalizability - that is,
the extent to which a theory applies across social settings - does not
always involve replicating the same research design across settings. To
the contrary, generalizability "often involves testing the same theoretical
principles with new measures in a new setting." Thus, the critical issue for
the general value of a particular study is whether the test adheres to the
scope conditions of the theory, that is, whether the findings are relevant
to the theory, but not necessarily whether the particular findings can be
reproduced in other settings. Simply put, testing the same theoretical
principles across social settings may require different research designs,
depending on the particulars of the social setting.
In this sense, the Icelandic findings support the confirmatory status
of relative deprivation theory as a viable factor in deviant behavior and
poor well-being. The study overlaps in part with two studies conducted
in the United States (Johnstone 1978; Jarjoura and Triplett 1997) that
found having low social status has a stronger effect on youth delinquency
in high status communities than in low status communities. Relatedly,
a study conducted in Honduras found socioeconomic status to have a
stronger, negative effect on adult support for political violence in affluent
neighborhoods than in impoverished neighborhoods (Canache 1996). Also,
a Swedish study has found the negative effect of economic deprivation on
adult health to be stronger among individuals having high income reference
groups (Yngwe et al. 2003).^ The accumulation of such findings across
societies (including the current findings) supports the generalizability of
relative deprivation theory, as well as the external validity of the current
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1243
Study (see Lucas 2003). Finally, our findings support studies that have
used other nnethods to operationalize the effect of relative deprivation on
deviance and crime, including studies based on subjective nneasures of
relative deprivation (Agnew et al. 1996; Baron 2003, 2006; Stiles, Liu and
Kaplan 2000) and studies on the effect of inequality on crime rates (Blau
and Blau 1982; Krahn, Hartnagel and Gartrell 1986).
We have proposed two theoretical mechanisms that explain how
the community context conditions the effects of economic deprivation
on adolescent outcomes. First, peers and other members of the local
community comprise an important reference group for adolescents.
Second, the standard of living of other community members may influence
how adolescents perceive the standard of living of typical others, hence
influencing their perception of their own status. The current findings are
consistent with both these theoretical mechanisms. A logical next step
in the analysis would be to bring in measures that are specific to each
mechanism. The first mechanism implies that the effect of economic
deprivation on subjective deprivation relative to peers should be weaker
in communities where economic deprivation is more common. As we
do not measure subjective deprivation relative to peers, this hypothesis
awaits future research.
However, because we measure subjective family status relative to
other families in Iceland, we can tackle the second mechanism. This
mechanism implies that the standard of living of others in the community
influences adolescent perception of the average or normal standard of
living in the society. Accordingly, the effect of economic deprivation on
subjective family status relative to other families in Iceland should interact
with community affluence. To date, the research has rarely examined how
such social comparison dynamics influence subjective relative status
among youth. Our findings show that the effect of economic deprivation
on subjective relative economic status is weaker in communities where
economic deprivation is more common. Although we acknowledge that
our measure of subjective relative family status is based on a single survey
item, this finding provides some support to one of the mechanisms that
constitute the theoretical basis for our analysis. It also illustrates how
the social context provides a framework that specifies how individuals
experience impoverishment. A more comprehensive and detailed analysis
of the theoretical mechanisms awaits future research.
Notes
It should be noted that while this description of the societal context holds for
the tinne period in which the current data is collected, March 2006, during the
fall of 2008 Iceland experienced an economic collapse that will lead to higher
rates of poverty and downward mobility in the near future.
1244 • Social Forces 87(3)
2. Although the sample attrition rate for the current survey is quite low (16
percent), we were concerned with a possible bias due to fact that absence
from school on the day of the survey could be systematically related to
economic deprivation (a concern raised by an anonymous reviewer). Thus,
schools in which economic deprivation is common may have a higher sample
attrition rate, a tendency that could bias the findings presented in this paper.
A supplementary analysis of the data (not shown), however, indicates that
such bias is not present. First, we find no significant relationship between
the school attrition rate and community economic deprivation (Pearson's r
= .05; p = .631 ; N = 83). Second, we have replicated the analysis in Table 2
and Table 4, controlling for the school attrition rate, that is, including it as a
predictor in Equations 2 and Equations 2.1 (see the section titled Statistical
Analysis). This procedure does not change the substantive findings.
3. A pilot survey on adolescents and their parents (N = 90) was conducted in
a single school in Reykjavik to examine the association between the current
measure of economic deprivation and parents' reporting of economic
deprivation (index combining seven items asking the parent about his or her
inability to pay for necessities, including car, leisure, housing, food). Due to
skewness in the items, we categorized the items into four equal groups. The
Gamma coefficient for the association between the items was .68, and logit
regression found that moving from the lowest through the highest value
on the parental report measure increased the odds of being in the highest
quartile on the current measure of economic deprivation by a factor of 46.
Also, the current data (N = 5,491) reveals good construct validity for the
current measure of economic deprivation. This measure is strongly related
to known risk factors of adult poverty in Iceland, including single-parent
households (especially if the single parent is female), non-college educated
parents (especially if the father has no college education), immigrant status,
parents' unemployment (especially if the father is unemployed), and rural
location.
4. Statistics Iceland has on record the actual tax records of all persons in Iceland,
by address and family type. Upon request, these data were aggregated by
the geographical boundaries of the 83 school-communities (data based on
tax records for the year 2005). Thus we were able to correlate the current
community-level measure of economic deprivation with the mean income
of all households with children in the geographical school-community. The
correlations are r = -.61 in the urban, Reykjavik area, and r = -.74 in rural areas.
5. The maximum difference in mean income (households with children) among
these units is a factor of 1.6 (based on tax records for the year 2005, provided
by Statistics Iceland).
6. If we were focused on the direct, contextual effects of these variables, it might
be more appropriate to create indicators that combine correlated community
characteristics (e.g., combining economic deprivation, percent single parent
households and immigration concentration into a single measure). For the
purpose of the current study, however, we only need to control for the joint
effects of the community-level variables. We note that dropping the independent
variables from Equation 2 has a trivial impact on the substantive findings.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1245
7. The subjects of this study were grouped into reference groups based on
the subject's social class, age, and living region. National average incomes
in each category were used to rank the reference groups with respect to
economic affluence.
References
Agnew, Robert. 1992. "Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and
Delinquency" Cnminoiogy 30(4):47-80.
. 1999. "A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime."
Journai of Research in Cnme and Delinquency 36(2): 123-55.
Agnew, Robert, Francis T Cullen, VelmerS. Burton, T David Evans and R. Gregory
Dunaway 1996. "A New Test of Classic Strain Theory" Justice Quarterly
13(4): 681-704.
Agnew, Robert, and Helene Raskin White. 1992. "An Empirical Test of General
Strain Theory" Criminology 30(4):475-99.
Aseltine, Robert H., Jr, Susan Gore and Jennifer Gordon. 2000. "Life Stress, Anger
and Anxiety, and Delinquency: An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory."
Journal of Heaith and Sociai Behavior 41 (3):256-75.
Baron, Stephen W. 2003. "Self-Control, Social Consequences, and Criminal
Behavior: Street Youth and the General Theory of Crime." Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 40(4): 403-25.
. 2006. "Street Youth, Strain Theory, and Crime." Journal of Criminai Justice
34(2):209-23.
Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2003. "Labeling, Life Chances,
and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in
Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood." Cr/>D//7o/o5'y 41(4):1287-1317.
Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, and Thorolfur Thorlindsson. 2007. "Community Structure
and Adolescent Delinquency in Iceland: A Contextual Analysis." Cnminoiogy
45(2):201-30.
Bjarnason, Dora S. 1974. A Study of the Intergenerational Difference in the
Perception of Stratification in Urban Iceland. Unpublished master's thesis.
Keele, England: Department of Sociology, University of Keele.
Bjerk, David. 2007. "Measuring the Relationship Between Youth Criminal
Participation and Household Economic Resources." Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 23(1 ):23-39.
Blau, Judith R., and Peter M. Blau. 1982. "The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan
Structure and Violent Crime." American Sociologicai Review 47(1 ): 114-29.
1246 . Social Forces 87(3)
Braithwaite, John. 1981. "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered."
American Socioiogical Review 46(1 ):36-57.
Bryk, Anthony S., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchicai Linear Models:
Appiication and Data Analysis Methods. Sage Publication.
Bursik, Robert J. 1988. "Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and
Delinquency: Problems and Prospects." Criminology
Burton, Velmer S., Francis T. Cullen, T. David Evans and R. Gregory Dunaway.
1994. "Reconsidering Strain Theory: Operationalization, Rival Theories, and
Adult O\m\mï\\y." Journal of Ouantitative Criminoiogy 10(3):213-39.
Canache, Damarys. 1996. "Looking Out my Back Door: The Neighborhood Context
of Perceptions of Relative Deprivation." PoliticaiResearch Ouarteriy A9{3)•.bA•7-7^.
Cohen, Albert. 1955. Delinquent Boys. Free Press.
Crosby, Faye. 1976. "A Model of Egoistical Relative Deprivation." Psychological
Review 83{2):Qb-^U.
Davies, James C. 1962. "Toward a Theory of Revolution."/4/7?enca/7 Sociological
Review 27 {^)•.5-'\9.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., and Covi, L. 1973. "SCL-90: An Outpatient Psychiatric
Rating Scale - Preliminary Report." Psychopharmacology Bulletin 9:13-28.
Dunaway, R. Gregory, Francis T. Cullen, Velmer S. Burton and T David Evans. 2000.
"The Myth of Social Class and Crime Revisited: An Examination of Class and
Adult Criminality" CA-/>77/>7o/og'/38(2):589-632.
Farnworth, Margaret, Terence Thornberry, Marvin D. Krohn and Alan J. Lizotte. 1994.
"Measurement in the Study of Class and Delinquency - Integrating Theory and
Research." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(1 ):32-61.
Gottfredson, Denise C, Richard J. McNeil III and Gary D. Gottfredson. 1991.
"Social Area Influences on Delinquency: A Multilevel Analysis." Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(2): 197-226.
Huston, Aletha C, V C. McLoyd, and C. G. Coll. 1994. "Children and Poverty Issues in Contemporary Research." Chiid Development 65{2):275-82.
Jaffe, Dena H., Zvi Eisenbach, Yehuda D. Neumark and Orly Manor. 2005.
"Individual, Household and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and
Mortality: A Study of Absolute and Relative Deprivation." Sociai Science ö
Medicine 60(5):989-97.
Jarjoura, G. Roger, and Ruth Triplett. 1997. "The Effects of Social Area
Characteristics on the Relationship Between Social Class and Delinquency"
Journai of Criminal Justice 25(2): 125-39.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1247
Johnstone, John W.C. 1978. "Social Class, Social Areas and Delinquency."
Socioiogy and Sociai Research 63( 1 ): 49-72.
Kingery, Paul M., Frank A. Biafora and Rich S. Zimmerman. 1996. "Risk Factors
for Violent Behaviors Among Ethnically Diverse Urban Adolescents - Beyond
Race/Ethnicity" School Rsychology International 17(2): 171-86.
Knoester, Chris, and Dana L. Haynie. 2005. "Community Context, Social Integration
into Family, and Youth yiolence." Journal of f\/larriage and Eamily 67{3):767-80.
Krahn, Harvey, Timothy F Hartnagel and John W. Gartrell. 1986. "Income Inequality
and Homicide Rates: Cross-National Data and Criminological Theories."
Chminoiogy 24(2):269-95.
Levine, John, and Richard L. Moreland. 1987. "Social Comparison and Outcome
Evaluation in Group Contexts." Pp. 104-27. Social Comparison, Sociai Justice,
and Reiative Deprivation. John C. Masters and William P Smith, editors.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. "Theory-Testing, Generalization, and the Problem of
External Validity." Socioiogicai Theory 21(3):236-53.
Menard, Scott. 1995. "A Developmental Test of Mertonian Anomie Theory."
Journai of Research in Chme and Deiinquency 32(2): 136-74.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. "Social Structure and Anomie." Pp. 185-214. Social
Theory and Sociai Structure. Robert K. Merton, editor. The Free Press.
Merton, Robert K., and Alice S. Rossi. 1968. "Contributions to the Theory of
Reference Group Behavior." Pp. 279-440. Sociai Theory and Social Structure.
Robert K. Merton, editor. The Free Press.
Messner, Steven F 1989. "Economic Discrimination and Societal Homicide Rates:
Further Evidence of the Cost of Inequality." American Socioiogicai Review
54(4):597-611.
Messner, Steven F, and Kenneth Tardiff. 1986. "Economic Inequality and Levels of
Homicide: An Analysis of Urban Neighborhoods." Criminology 2A{2):297-3M.
Olafsson, Stefan. 1999. islenskaleiâin. Reykjavik, Iceland: Tryggingastofnun rikisins.
Parkin, Frank. 1971. Ciass inequaiity and the Poiiticai Order. Praeger.
Passas, Nicos. 1997. "Anomie, Reference Groups, and Relative Deprivation." Pp.
62-94. The Future of Anomie Theory. Nicos Passas and Robert Agnew, editors.
Northeastern University Press.
Peterson, Axel West. 2004. "Inequality as Relative Deprivation: A Sociological
Approach to Inequality Measurement."/\cfô Socioiogica 47(1):31-49.
1248 . Soda/Forces 87(3)
Raudenbush, Stephen, Anthony Bryk and Yuk Fai Cheong. 2001. HLM5:
Hierarchical Linear and Ncnlinear Mcdeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Reis, Harry T. 1987. "The Nature of the Justice Motive: Some Thoughts on
Operation, Internalization, and Justification." Pp. 131-50. Sociai Ccmparison,
SccialJustice, and Relative Deprivation. John C. Masters and William R Smith,
editors. Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Testa, M., and B. Major. 1990. "The Impact of Social Comparisons after Failure:
The Moderating Effects of Rerceived Control." Basic and Applied Sccial
Psychology ^^(2)•.20b-^8.
Runciman, Walter G. 1966. Relative Deprivation and SocialJustice. Routledge &
Kegan Raul.
Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub, 1994. "Urban Roverty and the Family
Context of Delinquency: A New Look at Structure and Rrocess in a Classic
Study" Child Deveiopment 65(2):523-40.
Schor, Juliet B. 1999. The Overspent American. Harper Rerennial.
Sigfusdottir, Inga Dora, George Farkas and Eric Silver. 2004. "The Role of
Depressed Mood and Anger in the Relationship Between Family Conflict and
Delinquent Behavior." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33(6):509-22.
Stack, Steven. 1984. "Income Inequality and Rroperty Crime: A Cross-National
Analysis of Relative Deprivation Theory" Criminology 22(2):229-57.
Statistics Iceland. 2007. Wages, Income and Labour Market: Risk of Poverty and
Income Distribution2003-2004. Volume 92(1). Reykjavik, Iceland: Statistics Iceland.
Stiles, Beverly L., Xiaoru Liu and Howard B. Kaplan. 2000. "Relative Deprivation
and Deviant Adaptations: The Mediating Effects of Negative Self-Feelings."
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(1 ): 64-90.
Stouffer, Samuel A., Edward A. Schuman, Leiand C. DeVinney, Shirley A. Star and
Robin B. Williams Jr. 1949. The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army
Life, Voiume 1. Rrinceton University Rress.
Thorlindsson, Thorolfur. 1988. "Equality and Educational Opportunity in Iceland."
Scandinavian Journai of Educational Research 32(2):9-22.
Thorlindsson, Thorolfur, and Thoroddur Bjarnason. 1998. "Modeling Durkheim on
the Micro Level: A Study of Youth Suicidality">4me/-/ca/? SociologicaiReview
63(1):94-110.
Tittle, Charles R., and Robert F Meier. 1991. "Specifying the SES/Delinquency
Relationship by Social Characteristics of Contexts." Journai of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 28(4): 430-55.
Relative Deprivation Theory • 1249
Tomason, Richard F. ^980. Iceland: The First New Society. Reykjavik: Iceland Review.
Yngwe, Monica Âberg, Johan Fritzell, Olle Lundberg, Finn Diderichsen and Bo
Burström. 2003. "Exploring Relative Deprivation: Is Social Comparison a
Mechanism in the Relation Between Income and Health?" Social Science Et
Medicine b7(8):^463-73.
Yngwe, Monica Âberg, Johan Fritzell, Bo Burström and Olle Lundberg. 2005.
"Comparison or Consumption? Distinguishing Between Different Effects of Income
on Health in Nordic Welfare States." Social Science 8 Medicine 61(3):627-35.
Wilensky, H.L. 1963. "The Moonlighter: A Product of Relative Deprivation."
industrial Relations 3( 1 ): 105-24.
Wright, Bradley R. Entner, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Richard A. Miech
and Phil A. Silva. 1999. "Reconsidering the Relationship Between SES and
Delinquency: Causation But Not Correlation." Criminoiogy 37{^)^.^7b-94.
1250 . Social Forces 87(3)
co o
CZ> CZ3
(N
CM
CNI
CM
CNI
ez>
ez>
S
t=s
1^
CD
Uo o
co
o
S
co
S
•>—
CM
CM
T-
eu
Io o
o
co CM
».-I
O
2
^
C£) t ^
CNI a
to
ez>
oo
g
<u
co C35
E eu m oo
o
on
<u
on
e«
g
-a
o
,2
o
"d
CL,
s
I
ex.