Relative deprivation occurs when individuals perceive themselves to have inferior status after comparison with reference individuals or groups, and experience anger, dissatisfaction, or other negative emotions as a result of this comparison (Callan et al., 2017; Pettigrew, 2016). Early theories of relative deprivation focused on cognition, that is, the process of comparing with the reference (Pettigrew, 2015; Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). Smith et al. (2012) stressed the relativity and subjectivity of relative deprivation: The inferior status is not absolute, but the result of comparison with a reference. Deeper research has shown that relative deprivation is not only a social-comparison process, but also includes the anger, discontent, and other emotional reactions resulting from comparison with the reference; in other words, relative deprivation accords with the bidimensional structure of cognition and emotion (Callan, Shead, et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2019; Erdogan et al., 2018; Peng, Zhang, Zhang, et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2012). Relative deprivation can be categorized into personal and group types, depending on whether the subject of comparison is an individual or a group (Mishra & Novakowski, 2016; Pettigrew et al., 2008; Walker, 1999). Previous research has shown that both personal relative deprivation and group relative deprivation exhibit significant negative correlations with life satisfaction and self-esteem (Peng et al., 2023). Furthermore, these dimensions have been found to be significant predictors of various problematic behaviors, such as crime (Peng et al., 2013), aggression (Erdogan et al., 2018), excessive drinking (Mishra & Carleton, 2015), addiction (Beshai et al., 2017), and other forms of misbehavior (Mishra & Meadows, 2018).

 

Smith et al. (2012) stressed that tools assessing relative deprivation should clarify the target of reference and assess anger, dissatisfaction, and other emotional experiences. Using the cognition–emotion bidimensional structural model, Zagefka et al. (2013) compiled an economic relative deprivation questionnaire and compared the economic relative deprivation of British and German college students with questions such as “What do you think about the economic conditions of British college students compared with German college students?” (the cognition dimension), and “Are you satisfied with the economic conditions of British college students compared with German college students?” (the emotional dimension). The Personal Relative Deprivation Scale (PRDS) developed by Callan et al. (2011) is a tool for measuring personal relative deprivation, and it has been found to have high reliability and validity. PRDS scores have been reported to be significantly and positively correlated with delay discounting (Callan et al., 2017), gambling (Callan, Shead, et al., 2015), impulsiveness (Mishra & Novakowski, 2016), prosocial behaviors (Peng, Zhang, Liao, et al., 2019; Tabri et al., 2015), social comparison (Callan, Kim, et al., 2015), and materialism (Wang & Peng, 2017).

 

Currently, there is no unified questionnaire for evaluating relative deprivation in the Chinese setting. With rapid economic progress occurring over the past four decades in China, social injustice caused by imbalanced development has increasingly become a real problem (Zhu & Guo, 2022). Therefore, attention should be paid to the study of relative deprivation in China. The PRDS, as an important tool measuring relative deprivation, has not previously been translated into Chinese, and its reliability and validity in Chinese cultures has not been studied. The purpose of our study was to develop a Chinese version of the PRDS and evaluate its reliability and validity.

We recruited 556 college students as participants from two general universities in China. After we had excluded any questionnaire missing three or more items or showing evident answering rules, 533 valid questionnaires were retained, for a valid rate of return of 95.86%. The sample consisted of 255 men (47.8%) and 278 women (52.2%), majoring in preschool education, journalism, English, clinical medicine, and civil engineering. There were 115 (21.6%) freshmen, 131 (24.6%) sophomores, 198 (37.1%) juniors, and 89 (16.7%) seniors. After 2 weeks, we successfully recalled 227 participants for retesting. The participants completed the questionnaire in a classroom environment. They each received a ballpoint pen worth RMB 6.5 (USD 1.00) as compensation.

 

We followed a comprehensive five-step process to translate and adapt the PRDS into Chinese. First, five postgraduate students who were specializing in either psychology or English independently translated the PRDS into Chinese. Subsequently, we formed a synthesis of these translations. To ensure accuracy, two professional interpreters performed a back-translation of the synthesized Chinese version back into English. Two English experts then compared the accuracy of the back-translated English version to the original version. Following this, an expert committee reviewed the translated version to ensure its appropriateness and consistency with the original scale. Last, we tested a prefinal version of the translated scale with a sample of 20 college students, who evaluated the intelligibility of each item, with a targeted threshold of above 95% comprehension.

 

The PRDS–Chinese comprises five items, such as “I feel deprived when I think about what I have compared to what other people like me have.” Participants rate their responses on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 6 (completely true). The rigorous translation process we employed ensured the validity and reliability of the PRDS–Chinese.

 

The Economic Relative Deprivation Scale was originally created by Zagefka et al. (2013) and was translated into Chinese by Peng et al. (2023), showing good reliability and validity. We revised it by adding two items to assess the life scenarios of the college student: “How do you think of your economic conditions compared with other college students around you?” and “Are you satisfied with your economic conditions compared with other college students around you?” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very bad/very unsatisfactory) to 7 (very good/very satisfactory). After reverse scoring, we summed the scores to form a total score for this scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .70 in this study, indicating the scale was reliable.

 

We used the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) to measure participants’ levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Ma (2012) translated the scale into Chinese, and found that it showed good reliability and validity. The scale is composed of 21 items divided evenly across three dimensions: depression (e.g., “I had difficulty experiencing any positive emotions”), anxiety (e.g., “I experienced dryness in my mouth”), and stress (e.g., “I encountered difficulty in relaxing”). To determine the frequency of the applicability of each statement, participants were asked to rate their responses based on their feelings in the previous week, utilizing a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .91 for depression, .84 for anxiety, and .89 for stress.

 

We utilized the short-form Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) to assess aggression levels among the participants. Li et al. (2011) translated and localized the Chinese version, which consists of 12 items divided evenly across four dimensions: physical aggression (e.g., “Given enough provocation, I may resort to physical violence”), verbal aggression (e.g., “I often find myself disagreeing with people”), anger (e.g., “Sometimes I fly off the handle for no apparent reason”), and hostility (e.g., “I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy”).  Participants rate each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlike me) to 5 (very like me). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .83 to .89 in the current study.

We performed data analyses using SPSS 18.0, including descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, independent samples t tests, and exploratory factor analysis. Additionally, we utilized Amos 17.0 for confirmatory factor analysis.

We performed an item analysis of the data using the correlation coefficients for each item and total scale scores. The results in Table 1 show the correlation coefficients demonstrated excellent discriminability for all items.

We randomly divided the dataset into two for further analysis. The first half of the sample (n = 266) was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Bartlett’s test of sphericity value was 459.57, df = 10, p < .01, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test result was .82, indicating the suitability of the data for EFA. The EFA results revealed that only one factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1, and the scree plot supported the extraction of a single factor, accounting for 58.90% of the variance. The factor loadings of each item ranged between .67 and .80.

 

The second half of the sample (n = 267) was utilized for confirmatory factor analysis, as presented in Figure 1. All items exhibited significant factor loadings, p < .01. The goodness-of-fit indices met the required levels, χ²/df = 2.21, comparative fit index = .99, root-mean-square error of approximation = .07, standardized root-mean-square residual = .02. Hence, the one-factor model demonstrated a good fit to the data.

In assessing the reliability of the PRDS–Chinese, we calculated the split-half reliability, internal consistency reliability, and test–retest reliability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was .84, p < .01, indicating satisfactory internal consistency. The test–retest correlation coefficient, based on data from 227 participants who were reevaluated, was .89, p < .01, demonstrating good stability over time. Moreover, after employing the odd–even division approach, the PRDS exhibited a split-half reliability coefficient of .76, p < .01, affirming its consistency.

We subjected the PRDS–Chinese to a thorough evaluation of its construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity. The confirmatory factor analysis results established the excellent construct validity of the scale. Convergent validity, as indicated by the average variance extracted value, was .61, which is greater than the critical threshold of .50. This signifies that the scale possessed high convergent validity, with the items demonstrating a satisfactory level of shared variance. Furthermore, the PRDS scores exhibited positive correlations with economic relative deprivation scores, affirming the scale’s criterion-related validity. PRDS–Chinese scores also displayed significant positive correlations with stress, r = .74, p < .01; anxiety, r = .75, p < .01; and depression, r = .78, p < .01. Moreover, the PRDS scores had significant correlations with all dimensions of aggression, as outlined in Table 2. These findings further supported the robust criterion-related validity of the PRDS–Chinese.

In this study we undertook a meticulous process of translation, back-translation, and revision, in adherence with established guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation, to create the PRDS–Chinese. The results of item analysis, factor analysis, and criterion correlation analysis showed satisfactory psychometric characteristics of the translated scale.

 

Previous research has consistently shown that relative deprivation, stemming from social comparison, has detrimental effects on individuals’ mental health (Mishra & Carleton, 2015; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2007). Our study further supports these findings by demonstrating high correlations between PRDS scores and those for anxiety (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016), depression (Callan, Kim, et al., 2015; Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016; Mishra & Meadows, 2018), and stress (Callan, Kim, et al., 2015), thus aligning with the results of prior research and attesting to the strong validity of the PRDS. Frustration–aggression theory suggests that frustration can induce aggressive behavior, and relative deprivation can generate personal frustration, potentially leading to aggressive behaviors (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016, 2017; Williams & Clippinger, 2002). Therefore, the significant correlations observed between PRDS scores and various dimensions of aggression in this study further support the link between relative deprivation and aggressive tendencies. In summary, the PRDS–Chinese demonstrates high reliability and validity by meeting psychometric requirements, positioning it as a reliable assessment tool for measuring relative deprivation in the Chinese context.

 

China is undergoing a dramatic social transformation, and social injustice is becoming more common (Zhu & Guo, 2022), giving great social significance to the study of relative deprivation. The PRDS is an important tool measuring relative deprivation, but it has not been used in China before. Compared with other tools, the PRDS has some evident advantages. For instance, the reference is preset as the respondent comparing themself with those who are similar to them, which is more applicable than other relative deprivation scales that involve comparing the self with employees who possess overseas education (Zoogah, 2010), or with college students from another country (Zagefka et al., 2013). Moreover, this scale has a one-factor structure with only five items, which is suitable for the assessment of personal relative deprivation within short time frames. The PRDS–Chinese is an efficient and accurate scale for testing personal relative deprivation, and scholars can use this instrument with confidence in follow-up studies on, for example, social comparison, social injustice, aggression, and disadvantaged social status.

 

Our study has some limitations. First, we recruited only college students as participants, and the homogeneity may impact the reliability and validity analysis. We suggest that future studies recruit community residents, senior citizens, and rural residents as participants. Second, to assess personal relative deprivation and its criteria, we adopted simultaneous measurement and did not set any time interval, which may overestimate the correlation between personal relative deprivation and the criteria (Peng et al., 2014). In future studies, we recommend setting a time interval at which to evaluate different psychological variables.

Beshai, S., Mishra, S., Meadows, T. J. S., Parmar, P., & Huang, V. (2017). Minding the gap: Subjective relative deprivation and depressive symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 173, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.021

 

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

 

Callan, M. J., Kim, H., Gheorghiu, A. I., & Matthews, W. J. (2017). The interrelations between social class, personal relative deprivation, and prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673877

 

Callan, M. J., Kim, H., & Matthews, W. J. (2015). Predicting self-rated mental and physical health: The contributions of subjective socioeconomic status and personal relative deprivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01415

 

Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2011). Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 101(5), 955–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024778

 

Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2015). The relation between personal relative deprivation and the urge to gamble among gamblers is moderated by problem gambling severity: A meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 45, 146–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.031

 

Chung, K., Hwang, G., & Ryu, D. S. (2019). Scandal and social inequality: How young Koreans feel relative deprivation to sport celebrities. Sport in Society, 22(8), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1609949

 

Erdogan, B., Tomás, I., Valls, V., & Gracia, F. J. (2018). Perceived overqualification, relative deprivation, and person-centric outcomes: The moderating role of career centrality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.003

 

Gou, Y., Jiang, Y., Rui, L., Miao, D., & Peng, J. (2013). The nonfungibility of mental accounting: A revision. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 41(4), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.625

 

Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2016). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000058

 

Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2017). Increasing wealth inequality may increase interpersonal hostility: The relationship between personal relative deprivation and aggression. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(6), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1288078

 

Li, X., Phillips, M. R., Zhang, Y., Niu, Y., & Tong, Y. (2011). Development, reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 37(10), 607–613.

 

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u

 

Ma, A. (2012). Relative deprivation and social adaption: The role of mediator and moderator [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00377

 

Mishra, S., & Carleton, R. N. (2015). Subjective relative deprivation is associated with poorer physical and mental health. Social Science and Medicine, 147, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.030

 

Mishra, S., & Meadows, T. J. S. (2018). Does stress mediate the association between personal relative deprivation and gambling? Stress and Health, 34(2), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2789

 

Mishra, S., & Novakowski, D. (2016). Personal relative deprivation and risk: An examination of individual differences in personality, attitudes, and behavioral outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.031

 

Peng, J., Jiang, Y., Miao, D., Li, R., & Xiao, W. (2013). Framing effects in medical situations: Distinctions of attribute, goal and risky choice frames. The Journal of International Medical Research, 41(3), 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060513476593

 

Peng, J., Xiao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S., & Miao, D. (2014). The impact of trait anxiety on self‐frame and decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1783

 

Peng, J., Zhang, J., Liao, J., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, X. (2019). Justice and foresight: The effect of belief in a just world and sense of control on delay discounting. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2019.3

 

Peng, J., Zhang, J., Xia, Z., Wang, X., Dan, Z., Zheng, S., & Lv, J. (2023). How does relative deprivation relate to aggression in young male migrant workers? The mediator of self-esteem. Current Psychology, 42(10), 8136–8143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02094-8

 

Peng, J., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., & Gong, P. (2019). Relative deprivation and job satisfaction in Army officers: A moderated mediation model. Work, 62(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-182841

 

Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Samuel Stouffer and relative deprivation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514566793

 

Pettigrew, T. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033327

 

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00567.x

 

Smith, H. J., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Advances in relative deprivation theory and research. Social Justice Research, 28(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0231-5

 

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430825

 

Tabri, N., Dupuis, D. R., Kim, H. S., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2015). Economic mobility moderates the effect of relative deprivation on financial gambling motives and disordered gambling. International Gambling Studies, 15(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2015.1046468

 

Walker, I. (1999). Effects of personal and group relative deprivation on personal and collective self-esteem. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024004

 

Wang, Y., & Peng, J. (2017). Work–family conflict and depression in Chinese professional women: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and life satisfaction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(2), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9736-0

 

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2007). The problems of relative deprivation: Why some societies do better than others. Social Science and Medicine, 65(9), 1965–1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.041

 

Williams, R. B., & Clippinger, C. A. (2002). Aggression, competition and computer games: Computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00009-2

 

Zagefka, H., Binder, J., Brown, R., & Hancock, L. (2013). Who is to blame? Social Psychology, 44(6), 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000153

 

Zhu, J., & Guo, Y. (2022). Social justice in spatial change: Transition from autonomous rural development to integrated urbanization in China. Cities, 122, Article 103539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103539

 

Zoogah, D. B. (2010). Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in development activities. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018019