Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Personal Relative Deprivation: A Look at the
Grievous Consequences of Grievance
Francine Tougas1* and Ann M. Beaton2*
1
2
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
École de psychologie, Université de Moncton
Abstract
Stouffer et al. (1949) have first coined the term ‘relative deprivation’ to account
for unexpected grievance expressed by members of a fortunate group. Many
researchers have built on this work and have concluded that a person’s feeling of
deprivation is relative rather than absolute. In other words, deprivation stems
from a social comparison with better-off persons. In this chapter, a brief summary
of the ground-breaking research on relative deprivation is presented followed by
an overview of research on overt and covert responses to personal relative deprivation.
In accounting for the silent reactions of the underprivileged, we mainly focus on
recent research linking personal relative deprivation to psychological disengagement.
Turning to the responses of members of privileged groups, we take into account
personal relative deprivation and gratification. Our concluding remarks suggest
that responses of both the underprivileged and the privileged concur to the
maintenance of the status quo.
You don’t seem to realize that a poor person who is unhappy is in a better
position than a rich person who is unhappy. Because the poor person has hope.
He thinks money would help. ( Jean Kerr, 1923 –2003)
Many have joked about the misery of the wealthy and the happiness of
the poor. Beyond the irony, everyday life provides examples that affluence
and privilege do not guarantee happiness nor does poverty necessarily
cause grief. This paradox was best shown in a classic study entitled The
American Soldier (Stouffer, Suchman, De Vinney, Star, & Williams, 1949).
In this study, researchers unexpectedly found that although men in the air
corps had more chances of advancement than those in the military police,
they were the least satisfied with their promotion opportunities. Stouffer
et al. referred to this experience as relative deprivation.
The American Soldier study was the starting point of a prolific domain
of research. In fact, researchers from all over the world have contributed
to the development of the concept of relative deprivation first documented
by Stouffer et al. In this paper, we focus on different aspects of the
concept of relative deprivation. First, we present a brief description of the
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1754 Personal Relative Deprivation
classic studies that have contributed to the definition of the concept of
relative deprivation. Although Stouffer et al. have provided the basis for
the theoretical development of the concept of relative deprivation (Merton
& Kitt, 1968), it was neither measured, nor formally defined. Second, a
review of research evaluating reactions associated with feelings of relative
deprivation is presented. Third and last, we briefly describe new and
promising avenues of research in this domain.
On the Nature of Relative Deprivation
Stouffer et al. (1949) speculated on the type of comparison used by air
corps personnel and military police to explain their unexpected reactions
to promotion opportunities. The authors posited that promoted soldiers
in the military police, where the promotions were scarce, were more
likely to compare themselves with those who had not been promoted. As
Stouffer et al. explained, such positive comparisons result in feelings of
relative gratification. They further contended that un-promoted air corps
men would more likely compare their conditions with the sizeable
amount of promoted peers and thus experience feelings of relative deprivation.
In essence, the study conducted by Stouffer et al. has shown that feelings
of deprivation are subjective rather than objective. In other words, it is
not necessarily those who are in an unfavourable situation that are the
most likely to experience deprivation, but rather those who compare
themselves with more privileged others. To illustrate, Pettigrew (1964) has
shown that the ‘greatest relative optimism’ was expressed by the most
objectively deprived social category (i.e., African Americans with low-paying
jobs, little education or who resided in the Southern states). Conversely,
Pettigrew found that White Americans experienced the most relative
deprivation (see also Vanneman & Pettigrew, 1972).
Based on further analysis of the data collected in The American Soldier
study, Davis (1959) discovered that many different forms of social comparisons
were reported by men. For instance, some men compared their personal
situation with their peers. Social comparisons between groups were also
reported. For example, married drafted men compared themselves with
married civilian men. It became clear that more work was needed to
account for the different forms of social comparisons at the root of relative
deprivation. This was done by Runciman (1966) who contributed to the
expansion of the concept of relative deprivation by providing some essential
conceptual distinctions and clarifications.
Runciman (1966) explored responses to social inequalities among
English and Welsh white-collar and manual workers. In his analysis, a
distinction was made between egoistical and fraternal relative deprivation,
or more commonly known as personal and collective relative deprivation,
respectively. Runciman defined personal relative deprivation as the result of
a comparison between the self and a more fortunate member of the
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1755
in-group or the out-group. In this case, white-collar workers experienced
personal relative deprivation when they believed that they were personally
doing less well than other white-collar professionals or manual workers.
Collective relative deprivation, Runciman maintained, is the result of an
unfavourable comparison between the status of one’s in-group and members
of a more fortunate out-group. As an example, collective relative deprivation
was reported by white-collar employees when they considered that their
in-group was faring less well than manual workers. All in all, Runciman
helped to identify the distinguishing features of personal and collective
forms of relative deprivation.
Runciman (1966) further added that personal and collective forms of
relative deprivation share some defining elements. All forms of relative
deprivation, he argued, include a cognitive and an affective component.
The cognitive component refers to the perceived magnitude of the inequality
between two objects of comparisons (e.g., the self versus others). The affective
component is defined as the resulting emotional response, such as discontent,
dissatisfaction, or grievance. Most importantly, Runciman argued that
both the cognitive and affective components can work independently. In
other words, following an invidious social comparison with a more fortunate
other, individuals can recognize that they are disadvantaged, without
necessarily reacting negatively to this situation (see Guimond & DubéSimard, 1983; Martin, 1986; Olson & Hafer, 2001).
Since the seminal work of Stouffer et al. (1949), significant strides were
made to define relative deprivation. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
concept of relative deprivation was widely used to explain why individuals
revolt or participate in riots (see Guimond & Tougas, 1999 for a review;
Walker & Smith, 2002). Yet, no attempt was made to propose in any systematic
fashion a model of the effects of relative deprivation on behaviour. In this
sense, the work conducted by Crosby (1976) was a defining moment in
relative deprivation research.
On the Overt Responses of the Underprivileged to
Personal Relative Deprivation
Following her analysis of the literature, Crosby (1976) proposed a model
designed to explain the different behavioural reactions to personal relative
deprivation. According to the model, personal relative deprivation in
conjunction with psychological characteristics (i.e. whether the person is
intro or extra punitive and personal control) and social realities (i.e. whether
opportunities are opened or blocked) produce behavioural reactions.
Personal relative deprivation, according to Crosby, can set in motion two
forms of individual reactions directed at the self (i.e., stress symptoms (e.g.,
mental illness) or self-improvement behaviours (e.g., pursuing higher
education)). Crosby further posited that personal relative deprivation can
trigger reactions meant to change a system, typically known as collective
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1756 Personal Relative Deprivation
action. In her model, Crosby predicted that personal relative deprivation
can lead to two forms of collective action. The first includes violent
behaviours, such as rioting. The second set of collective action refers to
constructive reactions, such as voting at elections. A first formal test of
the effects of personal relative deprivation was provided in a classic study
conducted by Guimond and Dubé-Simard (1983) at a time of great
socio-political turmoil in Quebec. In 1980, René Lévesque, leader of the
Parti Québécois, a pro-sovereignty political party, held a province-wide
referendum. Citizens from Québec were asked to decide whether they
wished their province to attain an independent statehood within a mostly
English-speaking Canada. As a sovereign state, members of the Parti Québécois
argued, Québec would be better equipped to determine its own economic
and social development, as well as to implement measures designed to
protect and promote French culture and language within the province.
The referendum did not pass and René Lévesque conceded defeat, albeit
with the intention of diligently pursuing his work to promote Québec
sovereignty within the Canadian socio-political framework. It is within
this context that Guimond and Dubé-Simard invited French-Canadian
middle-class adults to complete a survey tapping into relative deprivation
and attitudes toward the sovereignty movement in Québec. Specifically,
participants were asked to respond to the cognitive and affective components
of collective and personal relative deprivation. The survey also contained
items designed to tap into different aspects of the Québec sovereignty
movement such as attitudes toward political autonomy and measures meant
to promote French culture and language. Findings were unequivocal:
Collective rather than personal relative deprivation was significantly associated
with favourable attitudes toward the Québec sovereignty movement. In a
follow-up study conducted among university students during an intense
period of collective protest in Québec, Dubé and Guimond (1986) further
found that group discontent was a better predictor of participation in
different forms of collective protest (i.e. picketing, class boycott) than
personal discontent. These results led authors to conclude that: ‘feelings
of discontent about personal prospects are not related to protest behaviour,
but there is a substantial association between dissatisfaction about the general
situation of students and the participation in collective action.’ (Dubé &
Guimond, 1986, 211). Recent research has also confirmed the role of group
discontent as a predictor of collective action (Wright & Tropp, 2002).
In short, research has not provided support for a direct connection
between personal relative deprivation and collective action. Nonetheless,
it is mistaken to conclude that personal relative deprivation has no impact
on collective action. For instance, the five-stage model of inter-group
relations (Taylor & McKirnan, 1984) rests on the assumption that failed
attempts to improve one’s personal situation will pave the way for collective
action. Some authors have further added that strong attachment to the
in-group and the belief that the system does not favour social mobility are
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1757
Figure 1
Direct and indirect effects of personal relative deprivation (Beaton & Tougas, 1997).
factors that generate collective action among personally deprived individuals
(Ellemers, 2002; Wright & Tropp, 2002).
In a study conducted among members of a disadvantaged group,
Beaton and Tougas (1997) elaborated on the relationship between personal
and collective relative deprivation as well as their respective behavioural
outcomes. This study revealed that women managers, who expressed
personal relative deprivation due to a disadvantageous work situation in
comparison with their male counterparts, generalized this experience at
the group level. In short, personal relative deprivation generated feelings
of collective relative deprivation. However, each type of relative deprivation
was connected with different reactions. Whereas personal relative deprivation
was a unique and direct predictor of individual behaviour (i.e. increased
work-related stress and intentions to leave the organisation), it also
indirectly accounted for collective action (i.e. support for affirmative
action strategies) via collective relative deprivation. Finally, and as expected,
collective relative deprivation was directly associated with collective action
(see Figure 1).
In sum, research has provided partial support for the model proposed
by Crosby (1976). Personal relative deprivation is a factor involved in
individual action (see also Hafer & Olson, 1993) and indirectly associated
with collective action. Yet, recent research has not provided consistent
support for the direct link between personal relative deprivation and
reactions directed toward the self (e.g., Dif, Guimond, Martinot, &
Redersdorff, 2001). For instance, in a study conducted among university
students, Kawakami and Dion (1993) have shown that personal relative
deprivation is not always associated with action designed to enhance one’s
situation. In fact, students who experienced personal relative deprivation
based on social comparisons between the self and more fortunate classroom
peers preferred certain forms of individual action, such as dropping out
of the class rather than others, such as working harder to get better grades.
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1758 Personal Relative Deprivation
The most damming evidence against the hypothesised link between
personal relative deprivation and individual action was provided in a
meta-analysis conducted by Smith and Ortiz (2002). This study investigated
the relation between relative deprivation and different courses of action.
The first set of analyses was conducted to determine whether both collective
and personal relative deprivation were associated with individual action
meant to redress one’s disadvantaged situation (e.g., seeking another job).
According to findings, personal relative deprivation was not a significantly
better predictor of individual action than collective relative deprivation.
However, when Smith and Ortiz considered internal states (e.g., low selfesteem, greater depression, or physiological stress) as the outcome behaviour,
the nature of the social comparison used to assess relative deprivation made
a dramatic difference. Personal relative deprivation was a more reliable
predictor of changes in internal states than collective relative deprivation.
As an example, Walker (1999) revealed that the experience of personal
relative deprivation harms one’s self-esteem. Interestingly, Smith and Ortiz
found that personal relative deprivation predicted detrimental internal
outcomes whether personal relative deprivation involved self-comparisons
with in-group or out-group members.
On Covert Responses of the Underprivileged to
Personal Relative Deprivation
A direct and negative link between personal relative deprivation and internal
states implies that the self-esteem of members of stigmatized groups
inevitably suffers when they recognize being both personally disadvantaged
on account of their group membership and dissatisfied with their relative
condition. If this is the case, members of stigmatized groups would generally
have very low self-regard. On the contrary, members of stigmatized groups
report high levels of self-esteem (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). To explain
this contradiction, authors have discussed how members of stigmatized
groups manage their experience of personal disadvantage. Among the gamut
of response options, some have detected covert responses, designed to ‘... adapt
to the situation by changing the way one feels about or thinks about the
stressful event’ (Miller, 2006, 34). For instance, Crocker and Major (1989) have
described three ‘silent’ responses to group stigma namely, focusing on in-group
comparisons, devaluing the domains where the in-group performs poorly,
and attributing negative outcomes to prejudice. The denial of discrimination
is another example of reaction of the underprivileged (Crosby, 1984;
Crosby, Pufall, Snyder, O’Connell, & Whalen, 1989). Crosby (1984) explains
that ‘the denial of personal disadvantage’ may stem from the emotional
discomfort associated with the experience of victimization or from a
tendency to attribute misfortunes to the self rather than discrimination.
Analysts have recently focused on covert responses to personal relative
deprivation that can maintain, protect, and improve the self-regard of
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1759
members of stigmatized groups (Lagacé & Tougas, 2006; Tougas, Lagacé,
Laplante, & Bellehumeur, forthcoming; Tougas, Rinfret, Beaton, & de la
Sablonnière, 2005). Mainly, this area of research has focused on one specific
strategy called psychological disengagement. In the following, we define
psychological disengagement and describe the two mechanisms people use
to mentally withdraw from threatening situations to protect their self-esteem.
We also briefly present research linking personal relative deprivation to
psychological disengagement. Finally, we conclude this section by providing
a more thorough evaluation of the impact of personal relative deprivation
on self-esteem.
Psychological disengagement is a mental withdrawal from a domain,
such as work, where a person is treated differentially on account of his/her
group membership (Crocker et al., 1998; Major & Schmader, 1998, 2001;
Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998; Schmader, Major,
Eccleston, & McCoy, 2001; Schmader, Major, & Gramzow, 2001). Through
psychological disengagement, the self-esteem is disconnected from negative
views and evaluations. It is through this dissociation that the self-esteem
is protected.
Psychological disengagement is achieved via two mechanisms (Crocker
et al., 1998; Major & Schmader, 1998, 2001; Schmader, Major, & Gramzow,
2001). The first is called discounting and involves the rejection of feedback
received in a domain. Discounting is used when individuals believe that
their performance at work, for example, is evaluated on the basis of the
ill reputation of their in-group, rather than merit. By discounting, the
self-regard becomes immune to biased feedback. Devaluing the domain
altogether is the second mechanism involved in psychological disengagement.
By devaluing, individuals withdraw mentally from their domain of activity
and thus shield their self-esteem from negative evaluations based on their
group affiliation. Work becomes less central in one’s life and, by the same
token, less critical to one’s self-definition. This mechanism has been labelled
the ‘royal road’ to disengagement as it may involve withdrawal from domains
that are essential to the social integration of individuals such as work and
study (Croizet & Martinot, 2003).
In sum, psychological disengagement is a temporary protective strategy
that people revert to when treated differentially (Crocker et al., 1998;
Major et al., 1998; Major & Schmader, 1998; Schmader, Major, & Gramzow,
2001). This hypothesis was extended to the concept of personal relative
deprivation which not only includes perceptions of differential treatment,
but also the resulting affective reaction, in this case, feelings of discontent.
These feelings have been found to be important in the emergence of
reactions to differential treatment (Dubé & Guimond, 1986; Guimond &
Dubé-Simard, 1983).
Studies evaluating the link between personal relative deprivation,
psychological disengagement, and self-esteem have produced a steady pattern
of reactions at variance with our hypotheses and expectations. First, it was
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1760 Personal Relative Deprivation
shown that personal relative deprivation does not, contrary to predictions,
simultaneously trigger both psychological disengagement mechanisms.
Instead, a stepwise pattern of reactions was observed among samples of
individuals belonging to different stigmatized groups, including women
and ageing workers. Feelings of personal relative deprivation have been
shown to lead to discounting which in turn, was found to promote the
use of devaluing (Lagacé & Tougas, 2006; Tougas et al., 2005, forthcoming).
These results are congruent with the fact that devaluing has far-reaching
implications (Croizet & Martinot, 2003). By discounting, individuals
partially retreat from their domain: Rejecting evaluative feedback does
not entail avoiding contact with superiors or colleagues, nor does it mean
rejecting work altogether. People can make use of discounting and yet still
be involved in their career. Devaluing has more serious implications as one
attributes less importance to the chosen domain of activity. By devaluing
one’s work, for example, a ‘career’ becomes simply a ‘job’. This is perhaps
why individuals turn to this mechanism as a second resort. It is more
logical to embark on the road leading to psychological disengagement by
first adopting the less critical mechanism, discounting.
Studies revealed, in a second unexpected result, that psychological
disengagement mechanisms do not protect self-esteem (Lagacé & Tougas,
2006; Tougas et al., 2005, forthcoming). Instead, research has shown that
self-esteem is bruised by either discounting or devaluing, depending on
the status of the profession. Whereas discounting led to drops in self-esteem
in non-prestigious domains of activities such as police and administrative
work (Laplante, Tougas, & Beaton, forthcoming; Tougas et al., 2005,
forthcoming), such a decline occurred following devaluing in socially
well-viewed areas (Major & Schmader, 2001) such as nursing (Lagacé &
Tougas, 2006; Lagacé, Tougas, Laplante, & Neveu, 2008). The asymmetrical
and negative link between psychological disengagement mechanisms and
self-esteem has been explained (Tougas et al., 2005, 2008, forthcoming)
in light of the basic premise of social identity theory that is, people strive
to have a positive view of themselves (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
It was argued that, in a prestigious domain, self-pride is tied to the reputation
of the profession. In such a context, devaluing has a negative impact on
self-esteem. However, in a non-prestigious profession, it was contended
that people derive their self-pride from their status in the work group. By
discounting the biased feedback of superiors and colleagues, an important
source of self-pride is discredited. Thus, the negative link between
discounting and self-esteem is expected.
At this point, one could conclude that whether the link between
personal relative deprivation and self-esteem is direct or indirect, self-esteem
suffers. Drawing this conclusion was deemed premature as self-esteem level
is only one of the different facets of self-regard (Tougas et al., forthcoming).
Self-esteem stability is another crucial aspect of self-esteem which
contributes to feelings of emotional peace and well-being (Kernis,
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1761
Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989; Paradise & Kernis, 2002). Fluctuations in
self-esteem across situations and the magnitude of these modulations are
the elements considered when evaluating self-esteem stability (Kernis, 1993;
Rosenberg, 1986).
In a study conducted among individuals working in a non-prestigious
domain, the protective effect of devaluing on self-esteem stability was tested
(Tougas et al., forthcoming). Recall that in a non-prestigious domain,
discounting lowers self-esteem level. In other words, discounting in such
a domain did not shield the self-esteem level from the negative impact of
feelings of personal relative deprivation. However, it was found that devaluing
served as a booster of self-esteem stability. By devaluing their domain of
activity, individuals improved the stability of their self-esteem.
To summarize, feelings of personal relative deprivation have direct and
indirect negative impact on the level of self-esteem. On one hand, personal
relative deprivation directly lowered the self-esteem of members of
stigmatized groups. On the other hand, it indirectly reduced self-esteem
through psychological disengagement mechanisms. Nevertheless, it should
be noted that the drop in self-esteem was not extreme and scores typically
remained high (Lagacé & Tougas, 2006; Tougas et al., 2005, forthcoming).
Moreover, self-esteem is expected to rebound as individuals cease using
psychological disengagement strategies. Recall that psychological disengagement is used temporarily in situations that are threatening and
degrading. Finally, it was shown that psychological disengagement mechanism
can protect self-esteem from the turbulence triggered by feelings of personal
relative deprivation (Tougas et al., forthcoming). In this case, we refer to
self-esteem stability which brings back emotional peace.
On the Responses of the Privileged to Personal Relative
Deprivation and Gratification
Much of the work on responses to personal relative deprivation has been
conducted with disadvantaged group members. Paradoxically, the basic
principle underlying relative deprivation is that subjective, rather than
objective, deprivation is critical in generating dissatisfaction. Indeed, it is
the grievance reported by the most fortunate members of society that
triggered research in this area. What happens when those who have the power
to determine the different forms of justice (i.e., distributive, procedural
and retribution) are filled with a sense of grievance? Little is known about
this question. A recent study conducted among non-aboriginal Australians
has found that collective relative deprivation predicts group-based anger
and a willingness to engage in political action meant to thwart restorative
justice for Aboriginal people. Yet, the effects of personal relative deprivation
have not been considered (Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen, 2007).
Research reveals that members of historically advantaged groups also
report experiences of stigmatization. For instance, in a study conducted
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1762 Personal Relative Deprivation
by Branscombe (1998), men described personal experiences of sexist discrimination. In terms of the associated outcomes of personal experiences
of relative deprivation, research suggests differences between advantaged
and disadvantaged groups. In a recent study conducted among managers,
personal relative deprivation led men to adopt psychological disengagement
mechanisms (discounting and devaluing) more strongly than women (Tougas
et al., 2008). These findings are consistent with evidence that members of
advantaged groups react more strongly to unfair treatment than members
of the less-privileged group (Foster, Arnt, & Honkola, 2004).
Members of privileged groups also find themselves in the auspicious
position of making positive comparisons with less fortunate others and
experience relative gratification. Research has only recently documented
the effects of relative gratification among high- and low-status groups (see
Dambrun, Guimond, & Taylor, 2006 for a review). Ironically, studies have
shown that despite its enjoyable experience, relative gratification generates
inter-group hostility (Guimond & Dambrun, 2002, study 2), and most
particularly among members of the advantaged group (Guimond, Dif, &
Aupy, 2002). In an extensive study recently conducted among different
ethnic groups across South Africa, researchers examined the effect of
economic improvement on inter-group attitudes. South African respondents
completed a general measure of relative gratification, which included
favourable personal comparisons either with in-group or out-group members.
As expected, relative gratification among members of the advantaged
group was associated with out-group disparagement (Dambrun, Taylor,
McDonald, Crush, & Méot, 2006). To account for these findings, the
authors explain, ‘Greater prejudice toward out-groups may emerge in an
attempt to justify and maintain such privilege’ (Dambrun et al., 2006,
1041). Further research is needed to evaluate individual reactions following
an experience of personal relative gratification.
Concluding Remarks
Research on personal relative deprivation has come a long way since the
seminal work by Stouffer et al. (1949). Studies have not only documented
the nature of such feelings, but have also mapped out their consequences.
Surprisingly, personal relative deprivation has not been found to be a
crucial determinant of overt individual action designed to improve one’s
situation (Smith & Ortiz, 2002). Rather, the experience of personal relative
deprivation triggers silent, albeit negative reactions among members of
stigmatized groups. Being dissatisfied with invidious social comparisons
with a more fortunate other harms one’s well-being (Smith & Ortiz, 2002)
and leads disadvantaged group members to disengage psychologically from
adverse conditions (Tougas et al., 2005).
Research suggests many reasons why silent responses to personal relative
deprivation are favoured by disadvantaged group members. There are
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1763
strong pressures against acting on an experience of personal disadvantage,
such as the risk of exposing oneself to social disparagement from members
of the out-group (Kaiser, 2006; Woodzika & LaFrance, 2001) and the
in-group (Garcia et al., 2005). Contesting discrimination can also be a less
attractive option when members of a disadvantaged group recognize that
they may have much to lose (Shelton & Stewart, 2004, study 2). Finally,
attribution styles can be more conducive to covert rather than overt
responses to personal relative deprivation. For instance, Walker et al. showed
that personal relative deprivation experienced by working women is
associated with apathy if they attribute the experience of discrimination
to internal, stable, and global factors (Walker, Wong, & Kretzschmar, 2002,
study 2).
Research on responses of the disadvantaged to personal relative deprivation
considers only part of the picture. Grievance due to an invidious personal
comparison leads members of the advantaged group to react more
intensely than members of a less fortunate out-group. Perhaps for high-status
groups, the experience of personal relative deprivation compels them to
resort to overt, rather than covert, responses to ensure that their advantaged
status is maintained and reinforced.
In light of research in the area of relative deprivation, jokes about the
joy of being poor become cruel irony. When the poor recognize that they
are personally short-changed in this society, they suffer silently. They also
bear the brunt of further resentment when the rich either feel gratified
or are filled with a sense of grievance. All of these reactions, ranging from
out-group hostility expressed by the rich or the silent responses of the
poor have the same consequence: Maintaining the status quo and ensuring
that the poor remain in their place.
Short Biographies
Francine Tougas is a professor at the School of Psychology at the University
of Ottawa, Canada. She has devoted her research to the antecedents and
consequences of relative deprivation on the basis of sex, race, and age. Her
recent work includes multidisciplinary research involving law and psychology.
This research pertains to the impact of employment equity strategies on
women and visible minorities. Current research also involves the investigation
of the link between relative deprivation, psychological disengagement and
self-esteem. She holds a BA degree from the Univesité du Québec à
Montréal and a PhD in Psychology from the Université de Montréal.
Ann Beaton is a professor and Canada Research Chair on inter-group
relations at the Université de Moncton, Canada. Her research focuses on
how members of low- and high-status groups relate to one another in an
academic and work setting. Her studies conducted among members of
low-status groups have looked at how they respond to social exclusion.
Among members of high-status groups, her research has examined how
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1764 Personal Relative Deprivation
they view members of stigmatized groups and react to the effects of social
inclusion practices. Dr. Beaton holds a PhD in Experimental Psychology
from the University of Ottawa and has been a post-doctoral scholar at the
Center for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Kent in
Canterbury, UK.
Endnote
* Correspondence address: School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier,
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
References
Beaton, A. M., & Tougas, F. (1997). The representation of women in management: The more,
the merrier? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 773 –782.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages:
Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties
of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608 – 630.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 2, pp. 504 –553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Croizet, J. C., & Martinot, D. (2003). Stigmatisation et estime de soi. In J. C. Croizet & J.-P.
Leyens (Eds.), Mauvaises Reputations: Réalités Et Enjeux de la Stigmatisation Sociale (pp. 25 – 59).
Paris, France: Armand Colin Éditeurs.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85 –113.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386.
Crosby, F. J., Pufall, A., Snyder, R. C., O’Connell, M., & Whalen, P. (1989). The denial of
personal disadvantage among you, me, and all the other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M.
Gentry (Eds.), Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives (pp. 79–99). New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Taylor, D. M. (2006). The counter-intuitive effect of relative
gratification on intergroup attitudes: ecological validity, moderators and mediators. In
S. Guimond (Ed.), Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Cognition, Intergroup
Relations and Culture (pp. 206–227). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dambrun, M., Taylor, D. M., McDonald, D. A., Crush, J., & Méot, A. (2006). The relative
deprivation-gratification continuum and the attitudes of South Africans toward immigrants:
A test of the V-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1032–1044.
Davis, J. A. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22,
5–19.
Dif, S., Guimond, S., Martinot, D., & Redersdorff, S. (2001). La théorie de la privation relative
et les réactions au handicap: Le rôle des comparaisons intrapersonnelles dans la gestion de
l’estime de soi. Journal International de Psychologie, 36, 314 –328.
Dubé, L., & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal-group
issue. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative Deprivation and Social
Comparison: The Ontario Symposium (vol. 4, pp. 201–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity and relative deprivation. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.),
Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration (pp. 239–264). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Foster, M. D., Arnt, S., & Honkola, J. (2004). When the advantaged become disadvantaged:
Men’s and women’s actions against gender discrimination. Sex Roles, 50, 27–36.
Garcia, D. M., Reser, A. H., Amo, R. B., Redersdorff, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005).
Perceivers’ responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome
on discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 769–780.
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Personal Relative Deprivation 1765
Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects
of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 900 –912.
Guimond, S., & Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Relative deprivation theory and the Quebec nationalist
movement: The cognition-emotion distinction and the personal-group deprivation issue.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 526 –535.
Guimond, S., & Tougas, F. (1999). Sentiments d’injustice et actions collectives: la privation
relative. In R. Y. Bourhis & J.-P. Leyens (Eds.), Stéréotypes, Discrimination et Relations Intergroupes
(pp. 201–231). Liège: Mardaga.
Guimond, S., Dif, S., & Aupy, A. (2002). Social identity, relative group status, and intergroup
attitudes: When favourable outcomes change intergroup relations ... for the worse. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 739 –760.
Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1993). Beliefs in a just world, discontent, and assertive actions
by working women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 30 –38.
Kaiser, C. R. (2006). Dominant ideology threat and the interpersonal consequences of attributions
to discrimination. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social
Psychological Perspectives (pp. 45 – 64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). The impact of salient self-identities on relative deprivation
and action intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 525 –540.
Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological functioning.
In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard (pp. 167–182). New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as
predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 1013–1022.
Lagacé, M., & Tougas, F. (2006). Les répercussion de la privation relative personnelle sur
l’estime de soi: Une étude du rôle du désengagement psychologique auprès de travailleurs
de la santé de plus de 45 ans. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 69, 59 – 69.
Lagacé, M., Tougas, F., Laplante, J. D., & Neveu, J.-F. (2008). La santé en péril: les répercussion
de la communication âgiste sur le désengagement psychologique et l’estime de soi des
infirmiers de 45 ans et plus. Manuscript under revision.
Laplante, J. D., Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (forthcoming). Du pain et des roses: Le désengagement
psychologique comme réaction silencieuse au traitement différentiel de femmes dans un ghetto
rose d’emploi, le travail de bureau. Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration.
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When
the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relative deprived. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 46, 191–204.
Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative
stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 34 – 50.
Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through psychological disengagement.
In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective (pp. 219–241). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., & Schmader, T. (2001). Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvantage. In
J. T. Jost & B. Jamor (Eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice
and Intergroup Relatons (pp. 176–204). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. (1986). The tolerance of injustice. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna
(Eds.), Relative Deprivation And Social Comparison: The Ontario Symposium (vol. 4, pp. 217–242).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. R. (1968). Contributions to the theory of reference group behaviour.
In H. H. Hyman & E. Singer (Eds.), Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research (pp. 28–68).
New York, NY: Free Press.
Miller, C. T. (2006). Social psychological perspectives on coping with stressors related to stigma.
In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives
(pp. 21– 44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. T. Jost & B. Major
(Eds.), The psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup
Relations (pp. 157–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1766 Personal Relative Deprivation
Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implications
of fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 21, 345 –361.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1964). A profile of the Negro American. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence. In J. Suls
(Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (vol. 3, pp. 107–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social
Inequality in Twentieth-century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2001). Coping with ethnic stareotypes in the
academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of Social Issues,
57, 93 –111.
Schmader, T., Major, B., Eccleston, C. P., & McCoy, S. K. (2001). Devaluling domains in
response to threatening intergrou comparison: Perceived legitimacy and the status value
asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 782–796.
Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory
effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215 –223.
Smith, H. J., & Ortiz, D. J. (2002). Is it just me? The different consequences of personal and
group relative deprivation. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative Deprivation: Specification,
Development and Integration (pp. 91–115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. S., De Vinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The
American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life (vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. London, Engalnd: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Dans W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Dirs). The Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33 – 47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, D. M., & McKirnan, D. J. (1984). A five-stage model of intergroup relations. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 291–300.
Tougas, F., Lagacé, M., Laplante, J. D., & Bellehumeur, C. (forthcoming). Adopting psychological disengagement mechanisms to protect self-esteem from the negative outcomes of
relative deprivation: The good and the bad news. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development.
Tougas, F., Rinfret, N., Beaton, A. M., Laplante, J. D., & Ngo Mangelle, C. (2008). Discrimination de sexe au féminin et au masculin: Différentes vulnérabilité, différentes réactions?
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Tougas, T., Rinfret, N., Beaton, A. M., & de la Sablonnière, R. (2005). Policewomen acting in
self-defense: Can psychological disengagement protect self-esteem from the negative outcomes
of relative deprivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 790 – 800.
Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United
States. Race, 13, 461– 486.
Walker, I. (1999). The effects of personal and group relative deprivation on personal and
collective self-esteem. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 365–390.
Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (Eds.) (2002). Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and
Integration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, I., Wong, N. K., & Kretzschmar, K. (2002). Relative deprivation and attribution. In
I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration
(pp. 288 –312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Woodzika, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 15–30.
Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup
perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative
Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration (pp. 200 –236). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
© 2008 The Authors
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1753–1766, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00127.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd