Is It Just Me?: The Different Consequences of Personal and Group Relative Deprivation
Is It Just Me?: The Different Consequences of Personal and Group Relative Deprivation
复制标题
只有我吗？：个人和群体相对剥夺的不同后果
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. J. Ortiz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Heather J. Smith;D. J. Ortiz
两位教授发现，他们的薪水明显低于工作要求不那么严格的院校教员的薪水。一位教授立即加入教职员工工会，积极参加集会和罢工行动。另一位教授加倍努力以获得助学金和绩效工资。为什么这些教授对同样的劣势会有如此不同的反应？根据相对剥夺理论，同样的劣势以不同的方式呈现会导致不同的反应。如果教授认为自己是与其他机构的教师相比被剥夺的代表性教员（群体相对剥夺），那么她应该有动力支持集体行动。然而，如果教授认为自己是一个独特的个体，与其他教师相比被剥夺了（个人相对剥夺），那么她应该有动力去追求个人主义的机会。不幸的是，相对剥夺（RD）作为集体行为解释的最初承诺尚未实现。一些研究强烈支持 RD 模型（例如，Abrams，1990；Pettigrew，1978；Runciman，1966；Vanneman & Pettigrew，1972；Walker & Mann，1987），但其他研究则不支持（例如，Gaskell & Smith，1984；Thompson，1989）。针对这些不一致之处，之前的文献综述试图澄清这一概念的理论背景和组成部分（Crosby，1976；Martin，1986；Walker & Pettigrew，1984），或者完全否定其价值（例如，Finkel & Rule，1986；Gurney & Tierney，1982）。然而，否认 RD 的用处可能还为时过早。
Two professors discover that their salary is significantly lower than the salaries for faculty members at institutions with less stringent job requirements. One professor immediately joins the faculty union and actively participates in rallies and strike actions. The other professor redoubles her efforts to receive grants and merit pay. Why might these professors react so differently to the same disadvantage? According to relative deprivation theory, the same disadvantage framed in different ways will lead to different reactions. If the professor views herself as a representative faculty member deprived in comparison to faculty at other institutions (group relative deprivation), she should be motivated to support collective action. However, if the professor views herself as a unique individual deprived in comparison to other individual faculty (personal relative deprivation), she should be motivated to pursue individualistic opportunities. Unfortunately, the initial promise of relative deprivation (RD) as an explanation for collective behavior has not been fulfilled. Some investigations strongly support RD models (e.g., Abrams, 1990; Pettigrew, 1978; Runciman, 1966; Vanneman & Pettigrew, 1972; Walker & Mann, 1987), but others do not (e.g., Gaskell & Smith, 1984; Thompson, 1989). In response to these inconsistencies, previous literature reviews have sought to clarify the theoretical antecedents and components of the concept (Crosby, 1976; Martin, 1986; Walker & Pettigrew, 1984), or to dismiss its value completely (e.g., Finkel & Rule, 1986; Gurney & Tierney, 1982). However, dismissing the usefulness of RD may be premature.