Search

Theorists have long argued that two forms of relative deprivation exist: individual-based relative deprivation (IRD) whereby a person feels deprived relative to other individuals and group-based relative deprivation (GRD) whereby a person feels his/her ingroup is deprived relative to other groups. Combinations of IRD and GRD are therefore assumed to produce four response profiles: (i) high on IRD and GRD (i.e. 'doubly deprived'); (ii) high on IRD, low on GRD; (iii) low on IRD, high on GRD; or (iv) low on IRD and GRD. The existence of these profiles, however, has never been assessed. We address this oversight by using latent profile analysis to identify distinct response patterns to measures of IRD and GRD. Across two studies, we found no support for this typology, nor the oft-assumed doubly deprived profile. Rather, response patterns showed moderate levels of IRD across discrete profiles accompanied by considerable variability in GRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although group-based relative deprivation predicts people's willingness to protest unfair outcomes, perceiving that one's subgroup is respected increases employees' support for organizations. An integration of these perspectives suggests that subgroup respect will dampen the impact of group-based relative deprivation on workers' responses to unfair organizational outcomes. We examined this hypothesis among university faculty ( N = 804) who underwent a system-wide pay cut. As expected, group-based relative deprivation predicted protest intentions. This relationship was, however, muted among those who believed university administrators treated their area of expertise (i.e., their subgroup) with a high (vs. low) level of respect. Moderated mediation analyses confirmed that group-based relative deprivation had a conditional indirect effect on protest intentions via participants' (dis)identification with their university at low to moderate, but not high, levels of subgroup respect. Our finding that satisfying relational needs can attenuate responses to group-based relative deprivation demonstrates the benefits of integrating insights from distinct research traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key insight from investigations of individual relative deprivation (IRD) is that people can experience objective disadvantages differently. In this study, university faculty (N = 953) who reported greater IRD in response to a mandatory furlough (i.e., involuntary pay reductions) were more likely to (a) voice options designed to improve the university (voice), (b) consider leaving their job (exit), and (c) neglect their work responsibilities (neglect), but were (d) less likely to express loyalty to the university (loyalty). Consistent with the emotions literature, (a) anger mediated the relationship between IRD and voice, (b) fear between IRD and exit, (c) sadness between IRD and neglect, and (d) gratitude between IRD and loyalty. IRD was inversely associated with self-reported physical and mental health via these different emotional pathways. These results show how discrete emotions can explain responses to IRD and, in turn, contribute to organizational viability and the health of its members.

Recent research points toward the utility of the pluralist (multicultural) model as a viable alternative to the traditional assimilation model of cultural integration. In this study, we extend this work by evaluating when and to what extent feelings that members of a common group respect and value one's ethnic group membership (subgroup respect) shape social engagement and well-being. We do so in the context of a survey of students at a diverse, public high school. Subgroup respect was linked to more positive evaluations of both school authorities and students from ethnic outgroups as well as to lower levels of school disengagement. Consistent with past research, these relationships held only among ethnic minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos) but not among Whites. Findings about the relationship between subgroup respect and indicators of well-being were more mixed, with the relationship most evident among Asians Americans and Latinos and especially on indicators of physical health. Implications for understanding the consequences of pluralism are discussed in light of the observed ethnic group differences.

The relational model of authority suggests that people are inclined to accept the decisions of ethnic outgroup authorities when they identify with a superordinate category they share with the authority, and when the authority satisfies their relational justice concerns. Using responses from a random sample of African Americans, Latinos, and Whites about their cross-ethnic interactions with legal authorities, the findings indicated that those who are highly identified with the superordinate category of America indicate greater reliance on relational concerns and less on instrumental concerns when evaluating the authority's decision. In contrast, identification with one's ethnic subgroup did not moderate the linkage between relational concerns and acceptance. Across all ethnic groups, there were positive rather than negative correlations between measures of American and ethnic identity. Together, these findings indicate that subgroup identity does not undermine the relational basis of social regulation and that relationship-based governance is compatible with multiculturalism.