Relative Deprivation Scale
Also known as: RD Scale, Fraternal Relative Deprivation Scale, Group Relative Deprivation Measure
The Relative Deprivation Scale measures the subjective sense that one's own group (fraternal/group relative deprivation) or oneself (egoistic/individual relative deprivation) is unjustly worse off than a relevant comparison standard, accompanied by feelings of resentment. Building on Runciman (1966) and synthesized by Smith and colleagues (2012), it captures the three-component process, cognitive comparison, appraisal of injustice, and affective resentment, that links inequality to political action.
Key highlights
- Explains why objective inequality does or does not produce grievance and political action.
- Distinguishes group (fraternal) from individual (egoistic) deprivation, which predict different outcomes.
- Meta-analytically validated, with clear evidence that the affective component carries the predictive power.
- Applicable across protest, populism, redistribution, and intergroup-hostility research.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use the Relative Deprivation Scale to explain grievance-based political behavior, why disadvantage translates (or fails to translate) into protest, support for redistribution, populism, or intergroup hostility. It is appropriate for studying social movements, populist support, and reactions to inequality. Measure the group (fraternal) form for collective outcomes and the individual form for personal ones, and always include the affective resentment component, since cognitive comparison alone is a weak predictor.
Strengths & limitations
- Explains why objective inequality does or does not produce grievance and political action.
- Distinguishes group (fraternal) from individual (egoistic) deprivation, which predict different outcomes.
- Meta-analytically validated, with clear evidence that the affective component carries the predictive power.
- Applicable across protest, populism, redistribution, and intergroup-hostility research.
- Many older measures omit the affective component and therefore predict outcomes weakly.
- The choice of comparison referent strongly affects responses and is often left implicit.
- Self-reported deprivation is partly endogenous to political attitudes and ideology.
- Group and individual forms are sometimes conflated, blurring their distinct correlates.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the difference between egoistic and fraternal relative deprivation?
Egoistic (individual) relative deprivation is feeling that you personally are unjustly worse off than comparison others. Fraternal (group) relative deprivation is feeling that your group is unjustly worse off than a comparison group. The distinction matters because fraternal deprivation predicts collective political outcomes, protest, intergroup hostility, support for social change, whereas egoistic deprivation predicts more individual outcomes like stress or personal mobility.
Why is the affective component so important?
The 2012 meta-analysis showed that measures capturing only cognitive comparison, recognizing that one's group has less, predict political outcomes weakly. It is the affective response, resentment and anger about the perceived unfair gap, that motivates action. Including the emotional component substantially strengthens prediction, which is why modern relative-deprivation scales treat affect as essential rather than optional.
How does relative deprivation relate to collective action?
Group relative deprivation is a core motivational antecedent of collective action: the felt injustice and resentment supply the grievance that mobilizes people. In integrated models like SIMCA, group relative deprivation works alongside group identity and perceived efficacy to predict protest participation, with the affective injustice component being the key emotional driver.
Sources
- 1.Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203-232.
- 2.Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.ISBN 9780710045867
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Relative Deprivation Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/political-psychology/relative-deprivation-scale