546 Justice, Equity, and Fairness in Human Relations
and disadvantaging of their group than of themselves. This
corresponds to the well-known better-than-averagephenom-
enon:I am personally better off than the average member of
my group(e.g., Crosby, 1982, for women’s appraisal of jus-
tice in wages). People are more likely to engage in protest
when they perceive their group as relatively deprived (e.g.,
Dion, 1986; Dubé & Guimond, 1986). One explanatory
hypothesis is that personal deprivation is more likely to be as-
sociated with symptoms of depression than with outrage
against an unjust system (Hafer & Olson, 1993). Another hy-
pothesis is that protest against personal relative deprivations
can be attributed to envy, an emotion and motive that has
negative connotations. Protest against fraternal relative de-
privation means both solidarity with one’s group and a fight
for more social justice: Both motivations are respectable. If
oneself is better off than the average of one’s group, one’s
protest even has a prosocial—not an egotistical—touch
(Montada, 2001a).
Relative deprivation theory emphasizes the role of per-
ceived injustice in comparison to referents in the emergence
of resentment and assertive actions both in the personal con-
text or in the political arena. But the theory does not specify
which standards of justice are applied, nor which referents
are chosen for comparison by whom—nor does it specify any
other antecedents. Therefore, relative deprivation theory
works well as a post hoc framework for interpretation. It is
less suited to predict resentment and protest. For instance, the
spectrum of options for choosing comparison referents and
standards of justice is large, and these choices are motivated
whether they are deliberated or spontaneous. Those who are
motivated to avoid or reduce feelings of unjust discrimina-
tion have the option of downward comparisons. Findings re-
vealing that the majority of subjects state that they are
personally better off than the average member of their social
group demonstrates the motivated nature of this choice
(Crosby, 1982; S. E. Taylor & Brown, 1988). The majority of
those belonging to disadvantaged groups tend to avoid com-
parisons with advantaged groups (Major & Testa, 1988), or to
underestimate the size of the inequality (Wegener, 1987).
These and further coping strategies may help them to keep an
emotional balance by controlling feelings of injustice.
The question of how an active movement against injustice
arises has led to many explanatory hypotheses (Major, 1994;
J. Martin & Murray, 1986). Latent feelings of relative depri-
vation may be made conscious as a result of public condemna-
tions of existing discrimination and injustice. Participation in
public protests may be dependent on a rational calculation of
the expected personal costs and benefits, on the strength of
one’s feelings of solidarity with one’s group, and of moral
obligations to support it. Participation may be triggered
by outrage. Outrage against group relative deprivation may be
inflamed by unexpected and noticeably unjust losses and loads
decreed by those in power (Moore, 1978), especially when
losses were preceded by upward economic and social devel-
opment that has set higher standards for the appraisal of the
present unsatisfactory state (Davies, 1962). The justice princi-
ple violated is the right to preserve the status quo and to pre-
serve the present conditions of life and the acquired rights, an
issue that is referred to very frequently in political disputes.
Latent feelings of group relative deprivation may flare up as a
reaction to events of enraging victimization of members of the
own minority group; such reactions may explode collectively
in riots, especially when the state authorities violate their
duties by contributing to the unjust action or by failing to in-
tervene in ongoing victimization (Lieberson & Silverman,
1965): The withholding of basic civil rights by representatives
of the state is especially enraging.
The cases referred to by Moore (1978) and by Lieberson
and Silverman (1965) are characterized by an unequal distri-
bution of power. If the disadvantaged groups do not see the
possibility to push through their claims by taking legal ac-
tion, outrage may bring the empowerment to take collective
action to correct disadvantageous decisions, to change the
power structure, or to retaliate the victimization.JUSTICE IN SOCIAL RELATIONSJustice in social relations means justice with respect to the
exchanges between the members of social systems, the ex-
changes between social groups, corporations, and organiza-
tions, and between individuals and institutions—but it also
concerns the exchanges of casual encounters.Forms and Contents of Social ExchangesExchanges are ubiquitous in social life—between individu-
als, groups, organizations, and states, between individuals
and groups, individuals and organizations, and so forth.
Exchanges may be direct, for instance, when two individuals
express their liking for one another, conclude a contract, or
attack one another. Exchanges may also be indirect, for in-
stance, when an individual donates money to a charity that
provides help to people in need, or when the state collects
taxes from its citizens, using this income to pay for educa-
tion, law and order, and so on. Exchange relationships may
be sequentially chained. For instance, each adult generation
cares for the welfare and development of the younger gener-
ation, as well as the welfare of the aged parent generation.
The next generation will in turn do the same, thus abiding by
the terms of the generation contract.