The Justice of Distributions 545The conclusion that equity and inequity are in the eye
of the beholder does not only mean that various criteria of
justice may be applied. Rather, subjects may view the values
of their own contributions and benefits in an entirely different
way from the way they see the contributions and benefits of
others. A self-serving bias in appraisals of contributions and
benefits has been identified in a few studies (Lerner, Somers,
Reid, Chiriboga, & Tierney, 1991; Schlenker & Miller,
1977). Therefore, justice conflicts may also arise in cases in
which all parties apply the equity principle (Montada, 2000).
The Theory of Relative Deprivation
Research on distributive justice was instigated by the concept
of relative deprivation developed by Stouffer, Suchman,
DeVinney, Star, and Williams (1949). These authors ob-
served that soldiers’ satisfaction with the promotion system
within their section of the army was not determined by their
current position nor by the objective probability of promo-
tion. (In fact, dissatisfaction was more prevalent in the air
force than in military police although the air force had a
higher promotion rate.) Rather, comparisons with similar oth-
ers had a considerable impact on their level of satisfaction.
They were dissatisfied when they felt that they were disad-
vantaged (deprived) in relation to similar others. Depending
on the availability and the choice of comparison referents,
people in the same objective situation may be either satisfied
or dissatisfied. In most studies, the objective social situation
correlates only weakly with feelings of personal deprivation.
What are the circumstances leading to feelings of relative
deprivation?
Crosby (1976) proposed five necessary and sufficient pre-
conditions that can be illustrated using the example of wages.
A person must (a) see that someone else has a higher wage,
(b) want to have this higher wage as well, (c) feel entitled to
this higher wage, (d) think it is feasible to be paid a higher
wage, and (e) lack a sense of personal responsibility for not
receiving this higher wage. The denial of any personal re-
sponsibility for one’s relatively disadvantaged situation is a
necessary condition for feeling entitled to claim the wanted
good. Feasibility can be defined by using one of the postu-
lates in Folger’s referent cognition theory (1986): Resent-
ment will occur when persons can easily imagine obtaining
the wanted good, implying that they do not perceive any seri-
ous objective restrictions or barriers. If they do not, some
actor or agency must be responsible for withholding the
wanted good.
Runciman (1966) has distinguished between egoistical
(personal) and fraternal (group) deprivation. The latter
implies that a person views his or her social group or the so-
cial category to which he or she belongs as disadvantaged
compared with another social group or category. It is remark-
able that in Western societies with a liberal tradition, even
large inequalities in material wealth between social groups
or categories are not viewed as being unjust by the majority
of the population, and consequently do not cause feelings of
group deprivation (Shepelak & Alwin, 1986). This can be ex-
plained by the dominant liberal ideology that everybody is
personally responsible for his or her success and welfare.
When discrimination is made salient and is clearly perceived,
however, feelings of group deprivation may become more
prevalent.
Conceptually, group deprivation does not imply personal
deprivation: The two have different comparison targets.
Personal deprivation occurs when individuals perceive that
they are disadvantaged compared with others of similar so-
cial status. Group deprivation is based on comparisons with
groups of dissimilar status. However, high levels of group
deprivation are less frequent among individuals ranking at
the lower end of their group’s objective deprivation range—
that is, among those who are (objectively speaking) the most
deprived. In fact, the more advantaged members of disadvan-
taged groups are, the more likely it is that they will resent the
difference between their group and more advantaged groups
and engage in protest actions (e.g., Pettigrew, 1964). An ex-
planatory hypothesis is that they compare themselves with
members of the more advantaged group and feel personal de-
privation in relation to them (D. M. Taylor & Moghaddam,
1994). For instance, women in higher-status positions who
earn significantly more money than does the average woman
resent the gender-bound inequalities in earnings more than
do women in low-wage groups (Crosby, 1982). Thus, rela-
tive group deprivation may be mediated by a perceived per-
sonal deprivation because the choice of comparison target
may cross the borderline between social groups (Zanna,
Crosby, & Lowenstein, 1987).
The 1960s civil rights movement in the United States
emerged during a period in which the disadvantaged were
making economic social gains. The observation that protest
against discrimination becomes more probable within up-
ward economic and social development can be explained by
the hypotheses (a) that comparisons with advantaged groups
become more likely (Pettigrew, 1972), and (b) that reality
cannot keep pace with raised expectations and feelings of en-
titlement to further improvement (Gurr, 1970).
Fraternal (group, collective) deprivation has different con-
sequences from those of personal deprivation. People are
more likely to admit the existence of an unjust discrimination