Suchergebnisse

Die Bedeutung der Bezugsgruppe für gesellschaftspolitische
Einstellungen und Erwartungen an den Lebensstandard.

Themen: Einschätzung der Entwicklung des eigenen Lebensstandards im
Zeitvergleich; Wahrnehmung des Lebensstandards anderer Gruppen oder
Klassen und Beurteilung der Berechtigung von Unterschieden; Einstellung
zum Wohlfahrtsstaat und Zufriedenheit mit der öffentlichen Versorgung;
Einstellung zur Arbeitslosenunterstützung und zur Krankenversicherung;
Karrierechancen und Zufriedenheit mit der beruflichen Position sowie mit
dem Einkommen; berufliche und regionale Herkunft; Selbsteinschätzung der
Schichtzugehörigkeit; Beurteilung der staatlichen Fürsorge für die
Gruppe, zu der man sich zugehörig fühlt; Wunsch nach mehr Ausbildung;
Präferenz einer manuellen oder nichtmanuellen Berufstätigkeit für die
Kinder; Klassenverständnis; Konstanz der persönlichen Parteipräferenz
und Charakterisierung der Anhänger der wichtigsten Parteien;
Charakterisierung der Lebensstile unterschiedlicher Gruppen;
Vermögensbesitz und Wohnungsausstattung; Mitgliedschaften und Teilnahme
an Veranstaltungen.

Demographie: Alter (klassiert); Geschlecht; Familienstand; Kinderzahl;
Alter der Kinder (klassiert); Konfession; Religiosität; Berufstätigkeit;
Einkommen; Haushaltsgröße; Haushaltszusammensetzung;
Haushaltungsvorstand; Parteipräferenz; politische Orientierung; soziale
Herkunft; Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter.

"Vor dem Hintergrund der Theorie Relativer Deprivation beantworten wir nun folgende Fragen: 1) Spiegelt sich die objektive wirtschaftliche Lage der Region - im Vergleich mit anderen Regionen in Deutschland - überhaupt in den individuellen Wahrnehmungen über eine Benachteiligung des eigenen Wohnorts wieder? Wir beschreiben und vergleichen hierzu die Benachteiligungswahrnehmungen von Menschen, die in vier, in ihren strukturellen Daten recht heterogenen Wohnorten leben, sowohl auf der persönlichen Ebene als auch im Hinblick darauf, wie sie die Lage ihrer Region einschätzen. 2) Wer fühlt sich besonders benachteiligt - im Vergleich mit anderen Personen und im Vergleich der eigenen Region mit anderen Regionen? Sind es tatsächlich diejenigen, die persönlich wirtschaftlich und sozial benachteiligt, also etwa arbeitslos und einkommensschwach sind bzw. die Personen, die in den objektiv benachteiligten Regionen leben? 3) Welche Konsequenzen ziehen die Benachteiligungswahrnehmungen - auf den verschiedenen Ebenen - nach sich? Werden sie von abwertenden Einstellungen gegenüber Minderheiten begleitet? 4) Schließlich fragen wir nach erklärenden Mechanismen: Warum führen Benachteiligungswahrnehmungen zur Abwertung anderer Gruppen? Können Bedrohungswahrnehmungen durch fremde Gruppen diese Zusammenhänge zumindest partiell erklären?" (Textauszug)

The present study was an attempt to validate empirically the concept of relative deprivation. According to this concept, feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction depend more on relative rather than absolute criteria. Depending on one's environment, one could feel relatively satisfied or relatively deprived. Some theorists attempted to further specify the conditions leading to feelings of relative deprivation. At least five theoretical models now exist in the literature which specify various pre-conditions leading to feelings of relative deprivation. In the present study, these various pre-conditions were operationalized and applied to the working environment. Subjects, blue collar and clerical workers (n = 198) from three different organizations, were asked to fill out a questionnaire specifically designed for that purpose. Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses favored Crosby's (1976) model over all other models examined. Relative deprivation feelings were positively correlated with wanting better working conditions, with comparing self to similar others, with feelings of deservingness, with feelings of greater expectations to have better working conditions, and, finally, with not holding self responsible for present conditions. Implications of the different models are discussed in terms of their theoretical and applied values.

The widely accepted expectation achievement approach to conflict, which views conflict primarily as a response to relative deprivation, has recently been challenged by proponents of a political process approach, the central features of which are mobilization of power resources and the struggle for power. Here a power balance model of conflict is developed which incorporates the core concepts from both approaches. In this model the difference in power resources between the contending parties is used as the central independent variable. Relative deprivation, utility of reaching the goal and expectancy of success are introduced as intervening variables to relate the effects from changes in the balance of power between the parties to the probability of manifest conflict between them.According to the power balance model of conflict different types of relative deprivation (aspirational, decremental and progressive) will be differently correlated with the probability of conflict. The overall correlation between relative deprivation and conflict is expected to be insignificant. Situations where the difference in power resources between two parties is decreasing are seen as most conducive to conflict. When the power resources of an already weaker party are decreasing, the probability of conflict is assumed to be lower than when the weaker party is gaining power resources.

This paper first offers a tribute to Samuel Stouffer (1900–1960), a major contributor to social psychology. He helped to establish probability surveys as a useful method for social science, led three major studies at midcentury, and introduced important new concepts and statistical methods. Thus, both conceptually and methodologically, he shaped modern social psychology. Second, the paper revitalizes Stouffer's most famous concept—relative deprivation. A new meta-analysis demonstrates that relative deprivation predicts a wide range of important outcomes, so long as it measures resentment with data from individuals and is paired with dependent variables of similar scope. Unfortunately, sociology largely abandoned the concept because it failed to meet the overstated early claims made for it in the collective protest domain. The history of this use and disuse of relative deprivation is summarized and critiqued.

THE WIDELY ACCEPTED EXPECTATION ACHIEVEMENT APPROACH TO CONFLICT, WHICH VIEWS CONFLICT PRIMARILY AS A RESPONSE TO RELATIVE DEPRIVATION, HAS RECENTLY BEEN CHALLENGED BY PROPONENTS OF A POLITICAL PROCESS APPROACH, THE CENTRAL FEATURES OF WHICH ARE MOBILIZATION OF POWER RESOURCES AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER. HERE A POWER BALANCE MODEL OF CONFLICT IS DEVELOPED.

While protests and voting are forms of political participation, their theoretical and empirical literature has largely developed independently and remains unintegrated, despite a possible common causal mechanism. This paper explores the possibility that perceptions of relative deprivation could be a common causal mechanism. It identifies three forms of relative deprivation – intra-personal, inter-personal, and fraternalistic. Using the Afrobarometer survey data for Kenya, the paper tests the influence of each of the three forms of relative deprivation on the likelihood of voting or participating in protests. The results show that intra-personal relative deprivation influences the likelihood of protesting and voting, by raising the former while reducing the latter. However, inter-personal and fraternalistic relative deprivations are not significant predictors of the likelihood of either protesting or voting.

Two experiments utilized a new experimental paradigm—the Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemma— Maximizing Difference (IPD-MD) game—to study how relative deprivation at the group level affects intergroup competition. The IPD-MD game enables group members to make a costly contribution to either a within-group pool that benefits fellow ingroup members, or a between-group pool, which, in addition, harms outgroup members. We found that when group members were put in a disadvantaged position, either by previous actions of the outgroup (Experiment 1) or by random misfortune (Experiment 2), they contributed substantially more to the competitive between-group pool. This destructive behavior both minimized inequality between the groups and reduced collective efficiency. Our results underscore the conditions that lead group members to care about relative (rather than absolute) group outcomes and highlight the need to differentiate between the motivation to get ahead and the motivation not to fall behind: the latter, it appears, is what motivates individual participation in destructive intergroup competition.