Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Opposing Paths to Ideology: Group-Based Relative Deprivation Predicts Conservatism Through Warmth Toward Ingroup and Outgroup Members

Abstract

Group-based relative deprivation (GRD) is a critical predictor of support for social change. Because resistance to change and acceptance of inequality are core features of a conservative ideology, we predicted that GRD would negatively correlate with conservatism. Moreover, given the central role affect plays in bridging the association between experiences with inequality and group-based responses, we expected that this hypothesized relationship would be mediated by intergroup emotions. We tested these hypotheses in a large national sample of Māori (N = 685)—the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. As predicted, GRD was indirectly associated with conservatism through participants’ warmth toward the majority outgroup (i.e., New Zealand Europeans) and the minority ingroup (i.e., Māori): whereas GRD was negatively correlated with warmth toward outgroup members, GRD was positively correlated with warmth toward the ingroup. In turn, warmth toward the (a) outgroup and (b) ingroup was positively and negatively associated with conservatism, respectively. Similar results were obtained when replacing conservatism with participants’ (a) satisfaction with the government and (b) support for New Zealand’s main center-right political party. Our findings demonstrate the complex relationship between GRD and political beliefs, while also highlighting the crucial role of emotions in connecting GRD with group-based attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because people tend to offer similar affective ratings for ingroup and outgroup members (see Sears & Savalei, 2012), we also estimated the residual correlation between participants’ warmth toward the majority outgroup and minority ingroup. Removal of this residual correlation from our model does not, however, substantively alter the results presented below.

  2. 2.

    We ran an additional set of analyses to examine the possibility that participants’ political ideology was indirectly associated with their experience of GRD via warmth toward the (a) majority outgroup and (b) minority ingroup (after controlling for our covariates). These analyses indicated that political conservatism was positively associated with warmth toward the majority outgroup (B = 0.104, SE = .047, p = .026) but was unassociated with warmth toward the minority ingroup (B = −0.070, SE = .043, p = .105). In turn, warmth toward the (a) majority outgroup and (b) minority ingroup was negatively and positively associated with GRD, respectively (B = −0.343, SE = .053, p < .001 vs. B = 0.461, SE = .062, p < .001, respectively). Inspection of the separate mediational pathways indicated that warmth toward the majority outgroup mediated the relationship between conservatism and GRD (B = −0.036, SE = .016, p = .041), but that the mediational pathway between conservatism and GRD through warmth toward the minority ingroup was unreliable (B = −0.032, SE = .020, p = .108). A comparison between these two mediational pathways indicated that they were of similar magnitude (B contrast = −0.003, SE = .032, p = .922).

References

  1. Abrams, D., & Grant, P. R. (2012). Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: The political rise of Scottish nationalism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 674–689. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02032.x.

  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (25 th anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Publishing, L.L.C.

  3. Anderson, C. J., & Singer, M. M. (2008). The sensitive Left and the impervious Right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5), 564–599. doi:10.1177/0010414007313113.

  4. Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 442–455. doi:10.1177/0146167213477155.

  5. Bernburg, J. G., Thorlindsson, T., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2009). Relative deprivation and adolescent outcomes in Iceland: A multilevel test. Social Forces, 87(3), 1223–1250. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0177.

  6. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.

  7. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126.

  8. Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2010). Personality and politics: The role of the HEXACO model of personality in predicting ideology and voting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(1), 43–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.004.

  9. Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Adler, N. E., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2), 268–274. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268.

  10. Crosby, F. J. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85–113. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85.

  11. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18(10), 867–872. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x.

  12. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010a). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01652.x.

  13. Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010b). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 76–80. doi:10.1177/0963721410363366.

  14. Doosje, B., van den Bos, K., Loseman, A., Feddes, A. R., & Mann, L. (2012). “My in-group is superior!”: Susceptibility for radical right-wing attitudes and behaviors in Dutch youth. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(3), 253–268. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00099.x.

  15. Ellemers, N., & Bos, A. E. R. (1998). Social identity, relative deprivation, and coping with the threat of position loss: A field study among native shopkeepers in Amsterdam. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(21), 1987–2006. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01357.x.

  16. Federico, C. M., Deason, G., & Fisher, E. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 381–398. doi:10.1037/a0029063.

  17. Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of “principled objections” to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488–502. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.488.

  18. Fraley, R. C., Griffin, B. N., Belsky, J., & Roisman, G. I. (2012). Developmental antecedents of political ideology: A longitudinal investigation from birth to age 18 years. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1425–1431. doi:10.1177/0956797612440102.

  19. Grant, P. R., & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 195–212. doi:10.2307/2787042.

  20. Grofman, B. N., & Muller, E. N. (1973). The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political violence: The V-curve hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 514–539. doi:10.2307/1958781.

  21. Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 900–912. doi:10.1177/014616720202800704.

  22. Harding, J. F., Sibley, C. G., & Robertson, A. (2011). New Zealand = Māori, New Zealand = bicultural: Ethnic group differences in a national sample of Māori and Europeans. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 137–148. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9608-5.

  23. Harris, R., Cormack, D., Tobias, M., Yeh, L.-C., Talamaivao, N., Minster, J., & Timutimu, R. (2012). The pervasive effects of racism: Experiences of racial discrimination in New Zealand over time and associations with multiple health domains. Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 408–415. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.004.

  24. Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karlsen, S., & Nazroo, J. (2006). Effects of self-reported racial discrimination and deprivation on Māori health and inequalities in New Zealand: Cross-sectional study. The Lancet, 367(9527), 2005–2009. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68890-9.

  25. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434–465). New York: Routledge.

  26. Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The multi-dimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 8–28.

  27. Huang, Y., Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., & Davies, P. G. (2014). The precious vessel: Ambivalent sexism and opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0423-3.

  28. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651.

  29. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600.

  30. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.

  31. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x.

  32. Koomen, W., & Fränkel, E. G. (1992). Effects of experienced discrimination and different forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese, a Dutch ethnic minority group. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 2(1), 63–71. doi:10.1002/casp.2450020106.

  33. Krynen, A., Osborne, D., Duck, I., Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Measuring psychological distress in New Zealand: Item response properties and demographic differences in the Kessler-6 screening measure. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 69–83.

  34. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.

  35. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229.

  36. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  37. Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x.

  38. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. doi:10.1080/10463280701489053.

  39. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., Meen, J., & Robertson, D. J. (1995). The preconditions and consequences of relative deprivation: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(11), 944–964. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02384.x.

  40. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists’ opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x.

  41. Osborne, D., Huo, Y. J., & Smith, H. J. (2014). Organizational respect dampens the impact of group-based relative deprivation on willingness to protest pay cuts. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12069.

  42. Osborne, D., Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (2011). The end of the solidly Democratic South: The impressionable-years hypothesis. Political Psychology, 32(1), 81–108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00796.x.

  43. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Does personality matter? Openness correlates with vote choice, but particularly for politically sophisticated voters. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 743–751. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.001.

  44. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Through rose-colored glasses: System-justifying beliefs dampen the effects of relative deprivation on well-being and political mobilization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 991–1004. doi:10.1177/0146167213487997.

  45. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Within the limits of civic training: Education moderates the relationship between openness and political attitudes. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12070.

  46. Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., & Sengupta, N. K. (in press). Income and neighbourhood-level inequality predict self-esteem and ethnic identity centrality through individual- and group-based relative deprivation: A multilevel path analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  47. Osborne, D., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2012). More than a feeling: Discrete emotions mediate the relationship between relative deprivation and reactions to workplace furloughs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 628–641. doi:10.1177/0146167211432766.

  48. Osborne, D., Wooton, L., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness and compassion differentially predict political conservatism via distinct ideologies. Social Psychology, 44(5), 354–360. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000132.

  49. Osborne, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). The efficacy-apathy model of political mobilization. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

  50. Pedersen, A., & Walker, I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: Old-fashioned and modern forms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 561–587. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199709/10)27:5.

  51. Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., Van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 385–401. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00567.x.

  52. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106.

  53. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press.

  54. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(20), 1853–1875. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x.

  55. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

  56. Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  57. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x.

  58. Sahar, G., & Karasawa, K. (2005). Is the personal always political? A cross-cultural analysis of abortion attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 285–296. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2704_1.

  59. Schmitt, M., Maes, J., & Widaman, K. F. (2010). Longitudinal effects of egoistic and fraternal relative deprivation on well-being and protest. International Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 122–130. doi:10.1080/00207590903165067.

  60. Sears, D. O., & Savalei, V. (2012). The blanket even-handedness bias in evaluations of racial and ethnic groups. Paper presented at the 70th annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

  61. Sengupta, N. K., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). The status-legitimacy hypothesis revisited: Ethnic-group differences in general and dimension-specific system-justification in a New Zealand sample. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12080.

  62. Sengupta, N. K., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1391–1403. doi:10.1177/0146167213497593.

  63. Sibley, C. G., Harré, N., Hoverd, W. J., & Houkamau, C. A. (2011). The gap in the subjective wellbeing of Māori and New Zealand Europeans widened between 2005 and 2009. Social Indicators Research, 104(1), 103–115. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9729-x.

  64. Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 664–677. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002.

  65. 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. doi:10.1177/1088868311430825.

  66. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during Army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

  67. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004a). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 59–99. doi:10.1080/10463280340000117.

  68. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004b). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263–277. doi:10.1177/0146167203256690.

  69. Taylor, M. C. (2002). Fraternal deprivation, collective threat, and racial resentment: Perspective on White racism. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 13–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  70. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Understanding the nature of fraternalistic deprivation: Does group-based deprivation involve fair outcomes or fair treatment? In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 44–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  71. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52–71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x.

  72. van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372. doi:10.1348/014466607X231091.

  73. Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13(4), 461–486. doi:10.1177/030639687201300404.

  74. Walker, I., & Mann, L. (1987). Unemployment, relative deprivation, and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(2), 275–283. doi:10.1177/0146167287132012.

  75. Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00645.x.

  76. White, P., Gunston, J., Salmond, C., Atkinson, J., & Crampton, P. (2008). Atlas of socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand NZDep2006. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

  77. Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press.

  78. Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–236). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  79. Zagefka, H., Binder, J., Brown, R., & Hancock, L. (2013). Who is to blame? The relationship between ingroup identification and relative deprivation is moderated by ingroup attributions. Social Psychology, 44(6), 398–407. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000153.

  80. Zucker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1218–1245. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02037.x.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Data collection for Time 3 of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS) was supported by University of Auckland FRDF (3624435/9853) and ECREA (3626075) grants awarded to Chris G. Sibley, a University of Auckland FRDF (3700683/9853) grant awarded to Danny Osborne, and Performance-Based Research Funds jointly awarded to Chris G. Sibley and Danny Osborne. Additional funding was provided by a Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant (ID: 0077).

Author information

Correspondence to Danny Osborne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Osborne, D., Sibley, C.G. Opposing Paths to Ideology: Group-Based Relative Deprivation Predicts Conservatism Through Warmth Toward Ingroup and Outgroup Members. Soc Just Res 28, 27–51 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0227-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Relative deprivation
  • Conservatism
  • Affect
  • Ingroup
  • Outgroup
  • Ideology
  • Intergroup emotions