European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Exploring the multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation

YECHEZKEL DAR* and NURA RESHThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract

Drawing from both social justice and deprivation research, we conceptualize expressions of sense of

deprivation (equated with sense of injustice) as a three-faceted structure de®ned by mode of

experience, social reward, and social sphere of allocation. To empirically verify the ®t between this

conceptual structure and the actual con®guration of people's deprivation reactions, we use a research

model of two modes of experience (cognition and emotion), three classes of rewards (instrumental,

relational and symbolic), and two social spheres of allocation (school and society at large). A

Similarity Space Analysis (SSA) of 17 measures (that represents this model with data collected among

Israeli adolescents) reproduced the three-dimensional structure of sense of deprivation, although not

all hypothesized af®nities and distances between measures were empirically reconstructed. Copyright

# 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

The phrases `feeling of deprivation' and `sense of deprivation' are used widely in daily lives and

political and educational discourses on distributive justice, usually in a generalized, indiscriminate

manner. The suggestion ` . . . to distinguish separate areas of relative deprivation, since the individual's

sense of relative deprivation in one area may be uncorrelated with what he feels in another area'

(Deutsch, 1985, p. 51), is commonly ignored.

Drawing from both social justice and deprivation research, we aim to propose a conceptual

framework for mapping sense of deprivation (hereafter SoD) in a multifaceted structure, and to

empirically verify the ®t between this conceptual structure and the actual con®guration of people's

deprivation reactions. We do not seek to provide a phenomenology of SoD, nor to explain how people

develop the entitlements that underlie their SoD, or to explicate behavioral consequences of SoD.

Rather, we focus on structures of SoD, namely (a) the interrelations between empirical expressions of

deprivation of individuals, and (b) the arrangement of these expressions into domains according to a

set of conceptual classi®cations (or facets).

Speci®cally, we consider three essential dimensions or facets of the realm of SoD±class of the

allocated reward (instrumental, relational, and symbolic), type of the social sphere of allocation (school,

society), and mode of the deprivation experience (cognition, emotion). Regarding these dimensions, we

ask two questions. First, how much are one's cognition and emotions of deprivation, articulated across

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 5 January 2000

Accepted 1 August 2000

*Correspondence to: Yechezkel Dar, School of Education, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. E-mail:dar@vms.huji.ac.il

rewards and social spheres of allocation, clustered or differentiated? Second, may the empirical

interrelation between measures of SoD be parsimoniously described by a set of essential dimensions?

Since this study addresses various rewards for whose allocation people may apply various

principles of justice, we needed a research design that enables consideration of diverse rewards in

different social spheres. A sample of adolescent students provided this condition since the school is a

social setting that encompass institutional and community-like systems of multiple rewards. The SoD

that evolves therein can be therefore paralleled with SoD experience in the out-of-school social sphere.

The examples in the following discussion refer therefore to the school setting.

In the next section, we de®ne SoD and substantiate the argument about its mode-, reward- and

sphere-speci®city. Subsequently we explicate a three-faceted model and a hypothesis about the spatial

arrangement of the domains of SoD and test this hypothesis with data gathered among Israeli junior

high school students. In the concluding section we discuss the contribution of this study to the

understanding of the multidimensionality of SoD and suggest directions for further research.

CONCEPTUALIZATION

Sense of Deprivation

In this study we use deprivation and relative deprivation interchangeably, and regard sense of

deprivation as an observable human response rather than an explanatory construct in the sense that

relative deprivation has commonly been used (Cook, Crosby, & Hennigan, 1977; Walker & Pettigrew,

1984). We conceive of SoD as an evaluative response (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Olson & Zanna, 1993),

whether cognitive or emotive, of an individual who believes that his or her actual reward does not

match what he or she perceives as the just reward. When actual rewards do not match the just reward,

an experience of deprivation (Merton & Kitt, 1950; Davis, 1959; Pettigrew, 1967; Runciman, 1966;

Gurr, 1970; Crosby, 1976; Martin, 1981) or injustice (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965; Berger, Zelditch,

Anderson, & Cohen, 1972a; Lerner, 1977; Jasso, 1980; Folger, 1984; Deutsch, 1985; Markovsky,

1985; Mikula, 1986) results.

The perception of a just reward, i.e. entitlement, can be viewed `as an expectation with normative

force that is derived from comparisons with a variety of referents' (Major, 1989, p. 100). These

comparisons are made within `referent structures' (Berger et al., 1972a) or `comparison aggregates'

(Jasso, 1980). Abundant theoretical thinking and research have been invested in de®ning these referent

objects and in locating the processes of their selection and use (Masters & Smith, 1987; ToÈrnblom,

1992; Hegtvedt & Markovsky, 1995).

Perception of a just reward may be related to one's investments or one's status characteristics

(Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972b). Investment-related perceptions of just reward usually draw from

the equitarian conception of justice (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965). Status-related perceptions draw

more from conceptions of equality (Rawls, 1971; Sampson, 1975), or need (Schwartz, 1975;

Schwinger, 1986). In most cases, perceptions of just reward draw from a repertoire of justice

principles from which one selects a weighted combination in accordance with the speci®c reward and

situation of allocation (Deutsch, 1975, 1985; Leventhal, 1976; Miller, 1976; Lerner, 1977; Cook &

Hegtvedt, 1983; ToÈrnblom & Foa, 1983; Mikula, 1984; Reis, 1984; ToÈrnblom & Jonsson, 1985; Nisan,

1989; for a comprehensive review, see ToÈrnblom, 1992; Hegtvedt & Markovsky, 1995).

Runciman's (1966) distinction between egotistic and fraternal deprivation was extensively treated

in research (Vanneman and Pettigrew, 1972; Martin, 1981, 1986; Guimond & Dube-Simard, 1983;

Martin & Murray, 1983; Crosby, 1984; Walker & Pettigrew, 1984; Dube-Simard & Guimond, 1986;

Petta & Walker, 1992). In our analysis (and empirical measures), we focus on egotistic deprivation. We

shall return to this point in the discussion of results.

64 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Three Facets of Sense of Deprivation

Mode of Reaction: Cognition and Emotion

Pioneering theorists of relative deprivation and social equity (Davis, 1959; Homans, 1961; Adams,

1965) saw emotion (anger, distress) as an inseparable corollary of cognition of inequity. Later

researchers usually do distinguish, though vaguely, between cognition and emotion of deprivation, but

assume their tight covariation (Runciman, 1966; Berger et al., 1972; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid,

1978; Jasso, 1980; Martin & Murray, 1983; Crosby, 1984; Markovsky, 1985; but see Petta & Walker,

1992). This covariation is explained by the emotional strands of want and wish that partake in the

formation of any entitlement (Runciman, 1966) and by the evaluative component that is imbedded in

every social comparison, as is exempli®ed in the following statement:

Humans compare their actual holdings of goods to their notions of the just holdings by taking a ratio

of the Actual term to the Just term. . . . The Comparison Ratio is an exclusively cognitive magnitude,

completely devoid of emotional content. . . . Humans evaluate the justice or injustice of their natural

endowments and social attributes and possessions by means of the emotions and sentiments that can

be formally represented as the logarithm of the Comparison Ratio (Jasso, 1980, pp. 5±6).

In light of latter conceptualization of attitudes (e.g. Millar & Tesser, 1986; Zanna & Rempel, 1988;

Breckler & Wiggins, 1989), we regard cognition of deprivation as identi®cation of injustice that

produces a cognitive imbalance that may, or may not, lead to an emotional reaction, to the ` . . .betrayal that we experience when others disappoint expectations that we have created with us' (Shklar,

1990, p. 83). Cognition of deprivation is apparently a prerequisite, although an insuf®cient one, for a

feeling of deprivation (Greenberg, 1984). Presumably, the greater the magnitude of the perceived

deprivation, the more intense the accompanying emotion (Mikula, 1984). Nevertheless, identical

magnitudes of cognition of deprivation may arouse different intensities of emotions, contingent not

only on the magnitude of the perceived deprivation, but also on a repertoire of mediating factors

(Mikula, Scherer, et al., 1998).1

The initial, diffuse feeling of deprivation may turn into de®nitive emotional expressions (see, for

instance, Mikula, 1986). One may assume dissatisfaction, insult, frustration, shame, envy, anxiety,

anger, self-blame and alienation to prevail among the under-rewarded, and guilt, empathy, identi®ca-

tion and compassion (toward the underprivileged) to predominate among the over-rewarded. People

who perceive deprivation and feel deprived may more aptly initiate or follow activity (Mark & Folger,

1984; Deutsch & Steil, 1988; Markovsky, 1991). Feeling of deprivation was shown as more important

in motivating protest action than cognition of deprivation (Guimond & Dube-Simard, 1983; De la Rey

& Raju, 1996).

Class of Allocated Rewards

Elaborating on Max Weber's (1946) classical distinction between money, power and prestige, later

theorists suggested more speci®c classi®cations of social rewards (resources, goods). Parsons (1967)

1Mentioned in this regard are: saliency of rewards (Deutsch, 1985), sensitivity to injustice (Huseman, Hat®eld, & Miles, 1987;Mikula, 1986), cost±bene®t considerations (Walster et al., 1978), past and future expectations (Bernstein & Crosby, 1980),raising expectations and status incongruity (Gurr, 1970; Taylor, 1982), socially de®ned expectation states (Berger, et al.,1972; Cook, 1975), involvement of personal and social identity (Guimond & Dube-Simard, 1983; Walker & Pettigrew,1984), social proximity (Williams, 1975) and closeness of relationships (Pritchard, 1969); structures of power (Cohen,1986) and social legitimization (Sampson, 1986), beliefs (Della Fave, 1974), and cultural conditioning (Adams, 1963;Mikula, et al., 1998).

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 65

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

classi®ed resources into money, power, in¯uence (prestige) and commitment, suggesting a `cyber-

netic' hierarchy of control that orders resources according to their convertibility in social markets. Foa

and Foa (1974) broadened their typology to include six categories: love, status, information, money,

goods and services, that may be ordered according to two coordinates: concrete±symbolic and

particularistic±universal. Jasso (1980) uses three distinctions: primary versus secondary goods; social

versus natural goods; and quality versus quantity goods. In a study of social justice judgements,

Sabbagh, Dar and Resh (1994) empirically corroborated a structural order of money, learning

opportunities, power and prestige along the dimension of universalism (convertibility) and particular-

ism (non-convertibility).

Group, personal and personal-by-group factors may cause differential salience of rewards and thus

produce variability of SoD by reward, irrespective of the social or institutional sphere of allocation.

Greater or lower salience of reward may directly enhance or alleviate one's feeling of deprivation with

regard to the same amount of perceived injustice; it may also affect one's perception of the just reward

and thus, indirectly, affect cognition of deprivation.

First, due to different value systems that derive both from cultural heritage and social conditions,

groups may differ in valuing social goods. This variation is partly due to magnitudes of resources that

people bring into the allocation process (Della Fave, 1974; Jasso, 1980; Humphreys & Berger, 1981;

Major & Deaux, 1982; Robinson, 1983; Cook & Hegtvedt, 1986; Deutsch & Steil, 1988). For

example, students from a lower socio-economic group, conforming to the `teenager' behavioral

model, may display greater sensitivity to relational rewards among peers while their counterparts from

a higher social group, conforming to the `academic' model, may attribute greater importance to grades

(Hargreaves, 1967).

Second, interpersonal variability in saliency of rewards may cause variability of SoD concerning

both same and different rewards. For example, consider A and B lower-class students moving from a

disadvantaged school to an integrated (desegregated) one. Student A, more anxious about his or her

immediate status in the class, may sense SoD concerning his or her lowered grades, while student B

may place more weight on the academic advantages of the new school and therefore sense a lesser

deprivation concerning his or her lowered grades. To exemplify the case of different rewards, consider

student C, who is satis®ed with his or her relational rewards (relationships with peers and/or teachers)

despite sensing grade deprivation.

Third, an incongruity may exist between group-held concepts of just distribution and individual

conceptions. For instance, SoD may arise when a rewardee seeks equality in teacher assistance while

the allocation of this asset is governed by the norm of need, or when peers allocate relational rewards

according to talent (or physical appearance), whereas the recipient considers equality in relations the

appropriate norm. Related here is the typical case of micro±macro justice incongruity (Brickman,

Folger, Good, & Schul, 1981), when one's expected meritocratic admission into college is denied in

preference of a less able minority group candidate.

All these structural distinctions between resources support the differentiation of SoD by classes of

rewards. Considering the social reality of adolescents, we distinguish here between instrumental,

relational and symbolic rewards. Instrumental rewards comprise economic goods and other assets

like grades, track placements and diplomas that may facilitate individual life chances. Relational

rewards include care, support, esteem and in¯uence. Symbolic rewards encompass images of

belonging to a particular social or ethnic group and its culture, including the social status accorded

to this group and its symbols (see Tajfel, 1982). These symbolic rewards may be particularly salient

in situations of encounter between minority±majority social or ethnic groups, as is the case of our

sample. The Jewish population in Israel, from which the sample of this study is drawn, is composed of

two ethnic conglomerates: Westerners (Ashkenazim) of European±American extraction, and East-

erners (Mizrachim) of Middle Eastern and North African extraction. Though the two are about equal

66 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

in size, the Western group is stronger economically, educationally and politically and considered the

dominant group.

Social Sphere of Allocation

The concept of social sphere denotes the social context of reward allocation (Walzer, 1983). One sort

of social sphere is the social institution, a system of roles and social arrangements that patterns

behavior with regard to a fundamental social need or problem (Parsons, 1967). In this sense, the

economy (but also the factory), the polity (also the army), and the educational system (the school) are

social spheres. Another sort of social sphere are groups and collectivities, i.e. systems of multi-faceted

interaction to which individuals feel themselves af®liated and from which they derive their social

identi®cation (Tajfel, 1982). These may be the society, the community, the peer group and so on (but

also the factory, the army, the school).

Despite the analytical distinction between reward and sphere, rewards are context-bound

(Leventhal, 1980; Walzer, 1983). First, there is a differential predominance of resources by sphere

(Foa & Foa, 1974; Deutsch, 1975, 1985). Money is dominant in the economy, power in politics, grades

in school, friendship in the peer group and so on. This differential predominance also variegates

meanings of rewards by sphere. For example, money is a major reward in the working place that also

symbolizes social status, while in the family it is accorded mostly an instrumental meaning. One may

thus sense deprivation in one sphere but not in the other, concerning the same reward.

Second, the type of social sphere may in¯uence SoD also through sphere-speci®c norms and beliefs.

For example, the school norm of meritocratic (equitarian) rewarding may attenuate SoD related to grades

(as far as grades are fairly allocated according to this norm). Similarly, in a class with a cooperative

climate of solidarity, SoD may be accentuated when relational rewards are allocated unequally.

Nonetheless, one may feel deprived in one sphere but not in another considering the same reward±

possibly owing to multiple comparative references. Probably, one's status is determined not only by

local comparison, but also simultaneously via external (or referential) comparison (Anderson et al.,

1969; Berger et al., 1972; Bassis, 1977; ToÈrnblom, 1977). For example, a student, moving from a low-

prestige neighborhood school to a more prestigious, desegregated one may lose in status and feel

deprived in comparison to more advanced peers in the new school. Yet he or she may be

simultaneously aware of the better education the new school offers and feel privileged in comparison

to her/himself in the past or to others in the present unfortunate to gain entrance to a well-established

school. This sense of privilege may reduce the student's SoD in the societal sphere, especially

concerning future life chances (Resh, 1999).

The foregoing discussion supports the claim that SoD is a realm of evaluative reactions that can be

mapped according to three facets: the mode of deprivation experience, the class of reward in relation to

which this experience is evoked, and the type of social sphere in which reward allocation takes place.

Subsequently we shape this argument as a structural hypothesis and test the correspondence between

the conceptual structure and the structure of the empirical observations of SoD.

MAPPING SENTENCE AND STRUCTURAL HYPOTHESIS

To spell out the content of and the relationship between the three facets of SoD, derived from the

theoretically delineated multidimensional universe of SoD, we apply a mapping sentence

(Brown, 1985; Levy, 1985, 1990) that speci®es three content facets (A mode of experience, B class

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 67

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

of reward, and C type of social sphere) and a common range facet (R) on which deprivation is

assessed:

A B C R

Cognition Instrumental School Preference

Student�x� of deprivation rewards in ÿ! �expresses in obtaining Relational the sphere 0

Emotion of Society ÿSymbolic

If this sentence adequately maps our conceptualization of SoD, then combining one element from

each facet of the sentence can represent a speci®c deprivation. The product of facets A, B and C de®nes

12 domains of SoD.

The proposition about the three-faceted structure of SoD may be formulated as a structural

hypothesis (Brown, 1985; Levy, 1985) about divisions of the space of SoD (as con®gured in the SSA

charts) into regions by experience, reward and sphere. Measures of SoD will be spatially arranged to

form a space that is simultaneously divisible into (a) two regions according to the modes of experience

(cognition and emotion), (b) three regions according to the content of rewards (instrumental, relational

and symbolic), and (c) two regions according to the spheres of allocation (school and society).

METHOD

Measures

For the 12 domains of SoD, we constructed eight multi-item measures of cognition (28 items) and nine

single-item measures of emotions, relating to nine domains. Due to problems of operationalization,

three domains were not measured. Table 1 summarizes the distribution of measures (as well as

measurement lacunae) by domains of SoD.

In the following list, the 17 measures are grouped by sphere, class of reward (A±F) and mode of

response. Cognitive and emotive deprivation measures are assigned CD and ED respectively. The

bracketed enumeration denotes item number ([1]±[36]).

Table 1. Distribution of measures by domains of SoD

School Society

Cognition Emotion Cognition Emotion

Instrumental Grades Grades Economicstanding

Economicstanding

Ability grouping Ability grouping Life chancesRelational Teacher Teacher Relation

assistance assistance expectationsTeacher relation Teacher relationPeer relation Peer relation

Symbolic Ethnic group Ethnic group±culture ±media

Ethnic affiliation

68 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

A. School Instrumental SoD was examined by two measures of cognition (CD), each followed by a

measure of emotion (ED):

(1) Grades. Mean CD grades in [1] mathematics, [2] English as a foreign language, [3] literature, [4]

biology, and [5] geography (mean between-item r� 0.19); and

(2) ED in grades [6 ].

(3) Ability grouping. Mean CD regarding placement in [7] English and [8] mathematics groupings

(r� 0.16); and

(4) ED in ability grouping [9].

B. School Relational SoD was examined by three measures of cognition, each followed by a

measure of emotions:

(5) Teacher assistance. Mean CD with regard to [10] given permission to speak in class and [11] help

with studies (r� 0.20); and

(6) ED in teacher assistance [12].

(7) Teacher relation. Mean CD with regard to [13] caring, [14] affection, [15] respect and considera-

tion of opinions (mean r� 0.48); and

(8) ED in teacher relations [16 ].

(9) Peer relation. Mean CD regarding [17] visits when sick at home, [18] invitations to peers homes,

[19] consideration of opinions, [20] acceptance of suggestions, [21] respect and [22] esteem (mean

r� 0.43); and

(10) ED in peer relations [23].

C. School Symbolic2 SoD was measured by a question about:

(11) ED regarding one's ethnic culture in school [24].

D. Societal Instrumental SoD was examined by two measures of cognition; emotions were

examined only concerning the ®rst:

(12) Economic standing. Mean CD regarding [25] personal allowance, [26] housing conditions and

[27] family's economic situation (mean r� 0.41); and

(13) ED in economic standing [28].

(14) Life chances. Mean CD with respect to [29] education, [30] employment and [31] standard of

living (mean r� 0.41).

E. Societal Relational SoD was examined by a measure of cognition:

(15) Relation expectations. Mean CD concerning expected [32] support, [33] respect and [34]

in¯uence as an adult in society (mean r� 0.41).

F. Societal Symbolic SoD (see footnote 2) was measured by two questions about emotion:

(16) Ethnic group media. [35] ED regarding one's ethnic culture in the media.

(17) Ethnic af®liation. [36 ] ED because of ethnic af®liation.

Metrics

To reduce boredom by a repeating pattern of questioning, cognition of deprivation was measured in

three ways. We were careful, however, not to mix different forms of measurement in a single domain

of SoD. First (in measures (1), (3), (5), (15)) by the difference between responses to statements

2The symbolic reward includes by de®nition a collective (fraternal) asset, but since this work is focused on egotistic deprivation,we ask here also `egotistic' questions (whether you feel deprived about the treatment of your ethnic group). Thus, the samelevel of analysis was fairly kept for all measures.

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 69

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

examining `deserve to have' and `do have'. For example: `I received a grade of X; I deserved to get a

grade of Y', where deprivation�YÿX. A score of zero denotes receiving due rewards, a positive

score denotes deprivation, and a negative score denotes preferential treatment. In items referring to the

future, cognition was extracted as a gap between `aspired' and `expected to get' reward (measure

(15)). Second, statements examining how much one receives of what he or she deserves (measures (7),

(9)). For example: `The kids in my class respect me' ± `much more than I deserve' (score ÿ2), `more'

(ÿ1), `as much as' (0), `less' (1), `much less than I deserve' (2). The third type (in measures (12), (14))

indirectly de®ned a situation of deprivation along a ®ve-point scale. For example: `My family's

economic situation is' from `very good' (1) to `very poor' (5).

Emotion of deprivation (measures (2), (4), (6), (8), (10), (11), (13), (16), (17)) was measured by

questioning the strength of feeling along a ®ve-point scale, from `do not feel deprived at all' (1) to `feel

very much deprived' (5). Where cognition and feeling measures referred to the same domain, only

respondents who reported cognition of deprivation were asked about emotions.

Sample

The data were collected from 8100 students in 273 eighth and ninth grades in a national sample of 47

Jewish junior high schools in Israel. The school sample was strati®ed to represent low, medium and

high rates of disadvantaged students and cities, established small towns, development towns and rural

communities. Within each school three or four classes were drawn from each grade level. Data were

collected by a self-reported, anonymous questionnaire that students ®lled out in their classes in the

presence of a member of the research team and a teacher.

Analysis

To examine the correspondence between the mapping sentence of SoD and the empirical structure of

its observations we applied Smallest Space Analysis (Guttman, 1968; Lingoes, 1977) on the matrix of

correlations among the 17 measures of SoD. SSA is a non-metric multidimensional scaling technique

(Borg & Groenen, 1997), also known as Similarity Structure Analysis (Borg & Lingoes, 1987), that

con®gures variables as points in a two- or three-dimensional (theoretically, n-dimensional) conceptual

space. The larger the similarity (correlation, proximity) between any two variables, the closer the two

points in the space that represent them. When a link between the content facets and these

con®gurations is conceptually established, the spatial con®gurations generated by the SSA may be

partitioned into regions that re¯ect the a-priori speci®ed facets and their elements.3

RESULTS

Before analyzing the structure of SoD, we brie¯y consider levels of SoD within and between domains.

3The clusters of variables that appear within the regions of the SSA diagrams may be seen as analogous to factors in commonfactor analysis. However, the advantage in using SSA rather than factor analysis is in SSA's capacity to con®gure not only theclustering of measures by domains (this is analogous to factor analysis) but also the structural relations and order betweendomains. The spatial con®guration of conceptually meaningful regions may enrich our understanding of the structure of theuniverse of SoD beyond the understanding achieved by factor analysis. For varied applications of SSA, see Canter (1985) andShye and Elizur (1994).

70 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Levels of SoD

As identical means may re¯ect many respondents feeling somewhat deprived or few feeling very

deprived±and it is unclear which of these expresses a greater SoD on the group level, we also

computed the percentage of respondents who perceived or felt deprivation (greater than 0 in measures

of 0 as the just reward score, and greater than 2 in Likert-type measures). Means, percentages, and

inter-correlations are shown in Table 2.

In the school, the strongest SoD is about grades, showing a mean of 0.36 and 72% of respondents

perceiving some deprivation about some grade. About 36% also feel deprived regarding grades but the

modest correlation between cognition and emotion (r� 0.24), indicates that cognition of deprivation is

not always accompanied by a corresponding feeling. Nevertheless, sensitivity to injustice is disclosed

in this domain, showing many students left with a sense of unfairness in the process of grading.

Placement in ability groups arouses less SoD: mean magnitude of perception is 0.17, and only 28%

perceive, and 17% feel, any deprivation. It should be borne in mind, however, that students in schools

that refrain from ability grouping, in schools with homogeneous homeroom classes (an organizational

substitute for grouping), and in slow-learner classes did not reply to this question. The placement of

the two latter groups may result in SoD that could not be extracted by the grouping question. The low

level of SoD in relation to grouping may also re¯ect an acceptance of this institutionalized

arrangement, which, unlike grades, is much less open for negotiation. However, those who did

perceive deprivation express a notable level of emotion of deprivation (M� 2.42), and cognition and

emotion correlate 0.34. Emotion concerning groupings and grades also correlate 0.35.

Overall, the magnitude of SoD in the school relational domain, is lower than that in the instrumental

domain. Mean cognition of deprivation in teacher help, teacher relations and peer relations are 0.11,

0.18, 0.12 respectively, with respective percentages of 35, 24, and 22 of the respondents. Mean

expressions of emotion are 2.21 and 2.27 for teacher and 2.34 for peer relations. About 30% of the

respondents feel deprived about affective relations with the teacher, compared to 17% who feel

deprivation with respect to teacher help and peer relations.

A considerable correlation between emotion of deprivation in peer and teacher relations (0.34±

0.46) re¯ects af®nity between the two systems of interaction. Emotion in this domain is relatively

strongly linked to emotion of deprivation in grades (r� 0.30). The greater magnitude of grade-related

SoD than relational SoD apparently re¯ects the saliency of these domains in students' school life.

In the social sphere, one third of the respondents perceives some deprivation concerning their

present economic situation and a quarter about their life chances, but the mean levels are low. The level

of emotions of deprivation in this domain is also very low (M� 1.86), and the rate of respondents who

feel economic deprivation is about 5%. The low rate of response (72%) to the measure of relational

deprivation in the future denotes a dif®culty in assessing a hypothetical situation. Among these, the

level of deprivation is also low.

Ethnic deprivation was recorded among all students (not only those who perceive deprivation, as in

the other questions of emotion). The very small proportions of those who feel deprived (7±10%)

indicate ethnicity as the weakest depriving factor in the measurement set.

Overall, school SoD is greater than that in the social sphere. In the school, grade-related SoD is

greater than relational SoD. In the social sphere, socioeconomic SoD is greater than symbolic-ethnic

SoD. This order apparently re¯ects the saliency of these domains in students' lives.

Structure of SoD

A relatively low inter-measure correlation, and modest correlation between measures of cognition and

emotion even in an identical domain (Table 2), point to a great speci®city of SoD reactions. Measures

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 71

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Table 2. Magnitude (M, %) and correlation (�100) of 17 measures of SoD

Dimension/measure Na Mb % Correlatione

Cognition of deprivation1 Grades 7843 0.36 72c

3 Ability grouping 6458 0.17 28c 165 Teacher assistance 7590 0.11 35c 08 047 Teacher relation 7800 0.18 24c 13 07 269 Peer relation 7915 0.12 22c 07 05 11 2612 Economic standing 7755 0.72 24c 03 03 08 11 1714 Life chances 7824 0.69 34c 04 11 04 14 14 2715 Relational expectation 5810 0.17 29c ÿ10 ÿ07 04 01 10 04 04Emotion of deprivation2 Grades 5922 2.5 36d 24 11 12 12 03 04 01 ÿ034 Ability grouping 2196 2.4 17d 14 34 10 07 03 05 05 ÿ01 356 Teacher assistance 3734 2.2 17d 07 04 23 19 09 08 04 08 31 268 Teacher relation 6696 2.2 30d 11 05 17 21 06 05 03 03 31 25 4610 Peer relation 3400 2.3 17d 02 02 09 08 34 14 04 13 18 21 34 3913 Economic standing 1626 1.8 5d 07 03 10 07 15 37 12 12 14 20 19 21 2611 Ethnic group±culture 7721 1.3 8d 06 07 07 08 10 11 08 ÿ03 08 09 14 11 12 1816 Ethnic affiliation 7265 1.2 7d 06 08 06 08 09 15 11 ÿ05 08 08 13 12 14 30 5117 Ethnic group±media 7202 1.4 10d 06 06 05 05 07 13 07 ÿ01 08 10 13 14 13 30 39 53

1 3 5 7 9 12 14 15 2 4 6 8 10 13 11 16

a Valid N of the total of 8100.b Mean of cognition (M < 1) was obtained on a scale with a central point of 0; mean of emotion (M > 1) was obtained on a ®ve-point Likert-type scale.c Percent expressing any deprivation among respondents to the measure.d Percent of respondents feeling any emotive deprivation weighted by the proportion of those responding to the emotion measure out of the responding to the cognition measure.e Correlation between CD and ED measures of identical content is printed in bold.

72

Yechezkel

Dar

and

Nura

Resh

Co

py

righ

t#

20

01

Joh

nW

iley&

So

ns,

Ltd

.E

ur.

J.Soc.

Psych

ol.

31

,63±81

(2001)

of emotion interrelate more strongly than cognition. The strongest inter-correlation is in the domain of

symbolic-ethnic feelings, which correlate rather strongly with emotions concerned with economic

standing. Cognition of relational expectations shows a number of negative correlations and seems as

only weakly related to the universe of content of SoD as measured here. Overall, the correlation

analysis shows a differentiated SoD.

We now examine the extent to which the structural hypothesis is reconstructed from the matrix of

correlations by inspecting two of the SSA maps.4 The ®rst projection (Figure 1) shows four regions in

a radial partition:

A Instrumental SoD regarding grades and ability grouping

B Relational SoD regarding teachers and peers

C Instrumental socio-economic SoD

D Symbolic ethnic SoD.

Figure 1 also shows a concentric arrangement of emotions and cognitions. Figure 2 shows an

almost orthogonal fourfold division into regions formed by the crossing of the two social spheres and

the two modes of experience.

Figure 1. SSA of interrelationships between 17 measures of SoD: ®rst projection±accenting mode of experienceand class of reward

4We have found a rather high stress in the ®t of the two-dimensional model (coef®cient of alienation of 0.20). In a three-dimensional model, the ®t was signi®cantly improved (coef®cient of alienation reduced to 0.13) but only two of the threediagrams produced in the analysis are presented, since the third does not provide any additional information.

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 73

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

The Dimension of Mode of Experience

Both SSA diagrams show a spatial arrangement of the measures of SoD in two clear-cut regions

de®ned by the mode of experience±cognition and emotion. This is shown in the concentric

arrangement in Figure 1, where emotion is in the inner circle and cognition in the outer one, and

the fourfold division in Figure 2 (emotion in the upper part, cognition at the bottom). In Figure 1

(but not Figure 2) cognition of teacher relation falls also in the inner circle±an exception to this pattern.

The demarcation in different regions of the space indicates that cognitions and emotions are relatively

differentiated, representing two distinct experiences of SoD.

In both diagrams emotions appear more concentrated than cognitions. This structure means that the

average correlation of emotions is larger than that of cognitions, indicating a more reward- and sphere-

speci®c cognitive experience and a more diffused and generalized affective experience. The

divergence of the cognitive reactions implies both a more considered and impartial regard of

deprivation, while the convergence of the affective reactions may mirror greater ego-involvement

that acts to diffuse feelings of deprivation across limits set by speci®c rewards and spheres.

Nevertheless, emotions appear also as a domain-speci®c experience rather than a generalized one.

The distinction between cognition and emotion indicates that cognition of deprivation may not

always trigger emotion, and when it does, the intensity of emotion does not necessarily correspond

with the magnitude of perception. It is noteworthy, however, that the SoD of our respondents is

more cognitive than emotive. Not only was the measurement of emotion based on the respondents'

Figure 2. SSA of interrelationships between 17 measures of SoD: second projection±accenting mode ofexperience and social sphere

74 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

self-report of feelings rather than on a direct expression of emotion, but also fewer respondents

reported on emotion than on cognition since reporting on feeling was in most cases conditioned by

cognition of deprivation in the speci®c domain. This emphasis on cognition may have contributed to

the non-generalized, domain-speci®c pattern of SoD.

The Reward Dimension

Figure 1 also shows a distinction of measures according to the semantic meaning of rewards. It thus

indicates a set of speci®c experiences of SoD, each related to a particular reward. The spatial

arrangement of measures reconstructs the second part of the structural hypothesis about regionality

according to three classes of rewards, though not fully. Relational and symbolic rewards indeed appear

in distinct regions (B and D), but the region of symbolic rewards (D) separates the two groups of

instrumental rewards, in school (A) and in society (C).

Two explanations may be suggested for this departure from the hypothesis. First, we probably

superimposed a common meaning of instrumentality on two distinct attributed meanings in the eyes of

students. Apparently, grades and ability groupings are attributed not only instrumental signi®cance,

but also prestigious, symbolic signi®cance, bringing this domain of SoD closer to the ethnic symbolic

domain. Second, the location of the ethnic symbolic domain between the school and society

instrumental domains (much closer to the societal one) seems to re¯ect the link between ethnicity

and social class that characterizes Israeli society.

The Dimension of Social Sphere

Figure 2 shows a spatial arrangement of SoD measures in four regions de®ned by mode of experience

and social sphere±school and society. There are two exceptions to this pattern: (1) cognition of

deprivation in society-relational expectations clusters with the school-cognitive measures; (2) emotion

of deprivation with regard to ethnic culture in school clusters with the other two ethnic deprivation

measures in the region of society.

The ®rst deviation from the hypothesis may be explained by the dif®culty young adolescents had in

responding to the society-relational measure that was exceptionally phrased as expectations about

their future social relations, respect and in¯uence as adults. A more substantial explanation applies for

the second. The tight clustering of school and society symbolic SoD seems to indicate their af®nity in

the eyes of students. It is noteworthy that these three are measures of emotion, which interrelate more

strongly than measures of cognition. At any rate, these two explainable cases of reward dominance

over sphere of allocation do not shake much the distinction between measures of school and societal

SoD, indicating that sphere of allocation is a third structural dimension of SoD.

DISCUSSION

When asked to relate to particular social rewards allocated in particular social spheres, respondents

reveal a differentiated array of cognition and emotions of deprivation. This array may be sorted into

domains that are de®ned by combinations of rewards and spheres, signifying that deprivation is

contingent on the allocated reward and the sphere of allocation.

Using facet approach terminology, the three-dimensional space con®gured by the two SSA

projections may be modeled (Figure 3) as a cylindrical structure (Levy, 1985). Mode of reaction

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 75

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

plays in this structure a modulating role in creating concentric regions around the axis of the cylinder,

in our case two regions of cognitive and emotive reactions. The reward facet plays a polar role in

creating wedgelike regions that emanate from the cylinder's axis, in our case four reward-related

regions. The facet of social sphere plays a planar role in dividing the cylinder horizontally, in our case

two regions of school and society.

The SSA reconstructs the mapping sentence, though not completely. The distinction between

cognition and emotion (facet A) clearly emerges, but the picture is more complex concerning classes

of rewards (facet B) and social spheres (facet C). Instead of the hypothesized partition into three

regions of instrumental, relational and symbolic rewards, four reward- and sphere-related regions

appear: (1) school instrumental deprivation (grades and groupings), (2) school relational deprivation

(teachers and peers), (3) society instrumental deprivation (present and future socio-economic), and (4)

symbolic-ethnic deprivation. This picture may be explained by the inter-dependence of reward and

Figure 3. Cylindrical three-facetal model of SoD. Outer cylinder represents cognition, inner cylinder representsemotion

76 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

sphere. Rewards are distinguished within each sphere (with the exception of ethnic group±school),

signifying that, in the structural arrangement of SoD, the facet of sphere dominates that of rewards.

The link between school deprivation (instrumental and relational) and symbolic-ethnic deprivation

is weak, pointing, in our case, to the weakness of the ethnic factor in generating school-related SoD. At

the same time, ethnic and economic SoD are interrelated in the same (societal) sphere, re¯ecting

interaction of ethnicity and socio-economic status in shaping life chances. The strong association

between the three measures of emotion of symbolic-ethnic deprivation is notable in this respect as it

accents their substantial distinctiveness. It should be born in mind that the level of deprivation in this

dimension, is the lowest.

The distinction that was borne out between four reward-related domains aids in illuminating the

structural relations of school and societal SoD. Considering the school, two regions were found: a

region of instrumental SoD related to grades and ability groups and a region of relational SoD

regarding relations with teachers and peers. In the societal sphere, also two regions were distinguished:

present and future socio-economic SoD, and symbolic-ethnic SoD concerning the status of one's

ethnic culture and af®liation with an ethnic group. The proximity of socio-economic and ethnic

deprivation re¯ects quite accurately Israel social reality (Dar & Resh, 1996; Dar, Erhard, & Resh,

1998). Nonetheless, both had a rather weak relationship with instrumental and relational SoD in the

school, indicating a little bearing of socio-economic and, particularly, ethnic SoD on school-related

deprivation.

A note of quali®cation is needed here for three reasons. First, the use of more than only one measure

of school ethnic deprivation may have brought the domain of ethnic deprivation closer to the domain

of instrumental school deprivation. Second, the three measures of symbolic ethnic deprivation

operationalize only feeling without a cognitive counterpart. Third, the symbolic domain was unique

in the whole measurement set as its three measures assessed individual feeling of deprivation that

stemmed from the treatment of, or af®liation with, one's ethnic group. This may explain both their

clustering and en bloc appearance in the region of society. Moreover, we may be dealing with an

unspeci®ed facet of egotistic versus fraternal deprivation (Runciman, 1966), the speci®cation of which

may facilitate the understanding of complex phenomena of deprivation.

We believe that this study contributed to clarify the realm of sense of deprivation (of injustice) as a

multifaceted phenomenon and outlined a conceptual but empirically corroborated framework useful for

future research. The multidimensionality of SoD deserves, however, further research that may take

various directions. First, replication of ®ndings in different populations (students in different countries,

or of different school levels) is needed.5 Second, even in this tridimensional model a more complete and

even distribution of measures by domains is needed. Our measurement structure was particularly

de®cient in the school-symbolic, society-symbolic and society-relational domains. Third, although this

three-dimensional model of SoD consists of most essential facets, it may not exhaust all possible

dimensions of the realm. Additional facets, and categories within facets, might be added in a modular

fashion. Here, a number of possibilities come to mind:

(1) We have limited our model to two modes of experience, viewing action as a consequence, not a

constituent component of SoD. This exclusion should be subjected to empirical veri®cation.

Inclusion of action in the model as a third mode of experience may also clarify the structural

relationships between cognition, emotion and action in the realm of injustice.

(2) The model could be extended to include a greater variety of social spheres and rewards.

Considering samples of adolescents, the family and the informal peer group may be suggested

as additional spheres.

5We have already made a small step in this direction. Following the suggestion of the reviewers of this article, we have comparedmatrices of inter-measure correlation of two random halves of our sample and found them quite similar.

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 77

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

(3) The incorporation of additional dimensions of SoD into the model should be theoretically

elucidated. In particular we have in mind the egoistic±fraternal distinction. The special con®g-

uration of the measures of ethnic SoD in the SSA points to the potential of this direction.

Lastly, our understanding of SoD will remain incomplete without relating to its social predisposi-

tions, namely to personal resources, especially money, power, prestige and intelligence that

individuals bring into systems of reward allocation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work evolved from the Israeli Junior High School Study in the NCJW Institute for Innovation in

Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel Association of Research Funds, Israel Science

Academy, and the National Council for Research and Development supported the study. We thank

Rachel Erhard for her contribution to this research and Reuven Kahane, Clara Sabbagh, and the

anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We also acknowledge the editorial assistance of

Helene Hogri and the graphics of Kari Druck.

REFERENCES

Adams JS. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 422±436.Adams JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2), Berkowitz

L (ed.). Academic Press: New York.Bassis MS. 1977. The campus as a frog pond: A theoretical and empirical reassessment. American Journal of

Sociology 82: 1318±26.Berger J, Cohen BP, Zelditch M Jr. 1972b. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological

Review 37: 241±55.Berger J, Zelditch M Jr, Anderson B, Cohen BP. 1972a. Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status-value

formulation. In Sociological Theories in Progress (Vol. 2), Berger J, Zelditch M Jr, Anderson B (eds). HoughtonMif¯in: Boston, MA.

Bernstein M, Crosby FE. 1980. An empirical examination of relative deprivation theory. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology 16: 442±456.

Borg I, Groenen PJF. 1997. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. Springer: New York.Borg I, Lingoes JC. 1987. Multidimensional Similarity Structure Analysis. Springer: New York.Breckler SJ, Wiggins EC. 1989. Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 25: 253±271.Brickman P, Folger R, Goode E, Schul Y. 1981. Microjustice and macrojustice. In The Justice Motive in Social

Behavior, Lerner MJ, Lerner SC (eds). Plenum: New York.Brown J. 1985. An introduction to the uses of facet theory. In Facet Theory, Canter DV (ed.). Springer-Verlag:

New York.Canter DV. 1985. Facet Theory. Springer-Verlag: New York.Cohen RL. 1986. Power and justice in intergroup relations. In Justice in Social Relations, Bierhoff HW, Cohen

RL, Greenberg J (eds). Plenum: New York.Cook KS. 1975. Expectations, evaluations and equity. American Sociological Review, 40: 372±88.Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA. 1983. Distributive justice, equity and equality. Annual Review of Sociology 9: 217±41.Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA. 1986. Justice and power. In Justice in Social Relations, Bierhoff HW, Cohen RL,

Greenberg J (eds). Plenum: New York.Cook TD, Crosby FE, Hennigan KM. 1977. The construct validity of relative deprivation. In Social Comparison

Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Suls JM, Miller RL (eds). Hemisphere: Washington, DC.Crosby F. 1976. A model of egotistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review 83: 85±113.

78 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Crosby F. 1984. Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In Research on Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6),Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT.

Dar Y, Erhard R, Resh N. 1998. Perceiving social cleavages and inequalities: The case of Israeli adolescents. Youth& Society 30: 32±58.

Dar Y, Resh N. 1996. Exploring the persistence of academic achievement gaps: Social differentials in familyresource returns in Israel. In Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization (Vol. 11), Pallas (ed.). JAIPress: Greenwich, CT.

Davis JA. 1959. A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry 22: 280±296.Della Fave R. 1974. The structure of egalitarianism. Social Problems 22(2): 199±213.De la Rey C, Raju P. 1996. Group relative deprivation: Cognitive versus affective components and protest

orientation among Indian South Africans. Journal of Social Psychology 135: 579±90.Deutsch M. 1975. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive

justice? Journal of Social Issues 31(3): 137±49.Deutsch M. 1985. Distributive Justice. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.Deutsch M, Steil JM. 1988. Awakening the sense of injustice. Social Justice Research 2: 2±23.Dube-Simard L, Guimond S. 1986. Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal group issue. In Relative

Deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4), Olson JM, Herman CP, Zanna MP (eds).Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Joanovich: New York.Foa UG, Foa EB. 1974. Societal Structures of the Mind. Thomas: Spring®eld, IL.Folger R (ed.). 1984. Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives. Plenum: New York.Greenberg J. 1984. On the apocryphal nature of the inequity distress. In The Sense of Injustice: Social

Psychological Perspectives, Folger R (ed.). Plenum: New York.Guimond S, Dube-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 SocialPsychology 44: 526±535.

Gurr TR. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Guttman L. 1968. A general non-metric technique for ®nding the smallest coordinate space of a con®guration of

points. Psychometrica 33: 469±506.Hargreaves DH. 1967. Social Relations in a Secondary School. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.Hegtvedt KA, Markovsky B. 1995. Justice and Injustice. In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Cook

KA, Fine GA, Hoose JS (eds). Allyn and Bacon: Boston.Homans GC. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace & World: New York.Humphreys P, Berger J. 1981. Theoretical consequences of the status characteristic formulation. American

Journal of Sociology 86: 953±983.Huseman RC, Hat®eld JD, Miles EW. 1987. A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct.

Academy Management Review 12: 223±234.Jasso G. 1980. A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review 45: 3±32.Jasso G. 1990. Methods for the theoretical and empirical analysis of comparison processes. In Sociological

Methodology, Clogg CC(ed.). American Sociological Association: Washington, DC.Lerner MJ. 1977. The justice motive in social behavior: Some hypothesis as to its origin and form. Journal of

Personality 45: 1±52.Leventhal GS. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9), Berkovitz L, Walster E (eds). Academic Press: New York.Leventhal GS. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and

Research, Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis R (eds). Plenum: New York.Levy S. 1985. Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In Facet Theory, Canter D (ed.). Springer-Verlag: New

York.Levy S. 1990. The mapping sentence in cumulative theory construction: Well-being as an example. In

Operationalization and Research Strategy, Hox JJ, De Jong-Gierveld J (eds). Swets & Zeitlinger: Amsterdam.Lingoes JC. 1977. Geometric Representations of Relational Data. Mathesis: Ann Arbor, IL.Major B. 1989. Gender differences in comparisons and entitlement: Implications for comparable worth. Journal of

Social Issues 45(4): 99±115.Major B, Deaux K. 1982. Individual differences in justice behavior. In Equity and Justice in Social Behavior,

Greenberg J, Cohen RL (eds). Academic Press: New York.Mark M, Folger R. 1984. Responses to relative deprivation: A conceptual framework. In Review of Personality

and Social Psychology (Vol. 5), Shaver P, Hendrick C (eds). Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 79

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

Markovsky B. 1985. Toward a multilevel distributive justice theory. American Sociological Review 50: 822±39.Markovsky B. 1991. Prospects for a cognitive-structural justice theory. In Social Justice in Human Relations,

(Vol. 1), Vermunt R, Steesma H (eds). Plenum: New York.Martin J. 1981. Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive justice for an era of shrinking resources. In Research

in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 3), Tajfel H (ed.). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT.Martin J. 1986. The tolerance of injustice. In Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario

Symposium (Vol. 4), Olson JM, Herman CP, Zanna MP (eds). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Martin J, Murray A. 1983. Distributive injustice and unfair exchange. In Equity Theory: Psychological and

Sociological Perspectives, Messik DM, Cook KS (eds). Praeger: New York.Masters JC, Smith WP (eds). 1987. Social Comparison, Social Justice, and Relative Deprivation: Theoretical,

Empirical and Policy Perspectives. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Merton RK, Kitt AS. 1950. Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In Continuities in Social

Research, Merton RK, Lazarsfeld PF (eds). Free Press: Glencoe, IL.Mikula G. 1984. Justice and fairness in interpersonal relations: Thoughts and suggestions. In The Social

Dimension (Vol. 1), Tajfel H (ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Mikula G. 1986. The experience of injustice: Towards a better understanding of its phenomenology. In Justice in

Interpersonal Relations, Bierhoff HW, Cohen RL, Greenberg J (eds). Plenum: New York.Mikula G, Scherer KR, et al. 1998. The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 769±86.Millar MG, Tesser A. 1986. Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude behavior reaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 51: 270±276.Miller D. 1976. Social Justice. Clarendon: Oxford.Nisan M. 1989. Children's perceptions of effort and productivity as granting a right for reward. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology 7: 307±319.Olson JM, Zanna MP. 1993. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 44: 117±154.Parsons T. 1967. Sociological Theory and Modern Society. Free Press: New York.Petta G, Walker I. 1992. Relative deprivation and ethnic identity. British Journal of Social Psychology 31: 285±93.Pettigrew TF. 1967. Social evaluation theory. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15), Levin D (ed.).

University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NB.Pritchard RA. 1969. Equity theory: a review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4:

176±211.Rawls JA. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Reis HT. 1984. The multidimensionality of justice. In The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives,

Folger R (ed.). Plenum: New York.Resh N. 1999. Injustice in schools: perception of deprivation and classroom composition. Social Psychology of

Education 3: 103±126.Robinson RV. 1983. Explaining perceptions of class and racial inequality in England and the United States of

America. The British Journal of Sociology 34: 344±366.Runciman WG. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.Sabbagh C, Dar Y, Resh N. 1994. The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach. Social Psychology

Quarterly 57: 244±261.Sampson EE. 1975. On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issues 31(3): 45±64.Sampson EE. 1986. Justice, ideology and social legitimization in justice. In Social Relations, Bierhoff HW, Cohen

RL, Greenberg J (eds). Plenum: New York.Schwartz SH. 1975. The justice of need and the activation of humanitarian norms. Journal of Social Issues 31(3):

111±136.Schwinger T. 1986. The need principle of distributive justice. In Justice in Social Relations, Bierhoff HW, Cohen

RL, Greenberg J (eds). Plenum: New York.Shklar JN. 1990. The Faces of Injustice. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.Shye S, Elizur D. 1994. Introduction to Facet Theory: Content Design and Intrinsic Data Analysis in Behavioral

Research Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.Tajfel H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33: 1±40.Taylor MC. 1982. Improved conditions, rising expectations, and dissatisfaction: A test of the past/present relative

deprivation hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly 45: 24±33.ToÈrnblom KY. 1977. Distributive justice: typology and propositions. Human Relations 30: 1±24.ToÈrnblom KY. 1992. The social psychology of distributive justice. In Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives,

Scherer K (ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

80 Yechezkel Dar and Nura Resh

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)

ToÈrnblom KY, Foa UG. 1983. Choice of a distribution principle: Crosscultural evidence on the effects ofresources. Acta Sociologica 26: 161±73.

ToÈrnblom KY, Jonsson DR. 1985. Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness indistribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly 48: 249±261.

Vanneman RD, Pettigrew TF. 1972. Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13: 461±486.Walker I, Pettigrew TF. 1984. Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of

Social Psychology 23: 301±310.Walster E, Walster WG, Berscheid E. 1978. Equity: Theory and Research. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA.Walzer M. 1983. Spheres of Justice: In Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books: New York.Weber M. 1946. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Gerth HH, Mills CW (eds). Oxford University Press:

New York.Williams RM Jr. 1975. Relative deprivation. In The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K.

Merton, Coser LA (ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York.Zanna MP, Rempel JK. 1988. Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In The Social Psychology of Knowledge,

Bar-Tal D, Kruglanski AW (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

The multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation 81

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 63±81 (2001)