Relative Deprivation, Absolute Deprivation, and Homicide: Testing an Interaction Between Income Inequality and Disadvantage

• Author: Stephen J. Watts,James C. McCutcheon,Bert Burraston,Karli Province
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767918782938
• Published date: 01 February 2019
• Date: 01 February 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767918782938

Homicide Studies

2019, Vol. 23(1) 3 –19

© 2018 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767918782938

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Relative Deprivation,

Absolute Deprivation,

and Homicide: Testing an

Interaction Between Income

Inequality and Disadvantage

Bert Burraston1, Stephen J. Watts1,

James C. McCutcheon1, and Karli Province1

Abstract

Both relative and absolute deprivation have effects on crime. These two concepts

may be complementary, but much scholarship has treated them as separate. The

present study assesses whether the effects of relative and absolute deprivation,

measured as income inequality and disadvantage, respectively, interact in their effect

on known homicide counts in U.S. counties. A multilevel regression model shows

that there is a significant interaction between income inequality and disadvantage

predicting homicide counts known to police. The plot of this interaction shows that

when disadvantage is extremely high, increasing income inequality does not increase

known homicides. The less disadvantage there is, the greater the effect of increasing

income inequality on homicide counts in U.S. counties. This finding suggests that the

effect of relative deprivation on known homicide is contingent on levels of absolute

deprivation and vice versa. The implication of this finding is discussed.

Keywords

homicide, relative deprivation, absolute deprivation, inequality, disadvantage

Both relative and absolute deprivation have been connected to physical and psycho-

logical health, structural and economic stability, access to nourishment, and crime

(Block & Block, 1992; Bradshaw & Ellison, 2010; Eberts & Sehwirian, 1968; Hsieh

1University of Memphis, TN, USA

Corresponding Author:

James C. McCutcheon, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Memphis, College

of Arts and Sciences, Memphis, TN 3815, USA.

Email: jcmcctch@memphis.edu

782938HSXXXX10.1177/1088767918782938Homicide StudiesBurraston et al.

research-article2018

4 Homicide Studies 23(1)

& Pugh, 1993; Ladin, Daniels, & Kawachi, 2009; Land, McCall, & Cohen, 1990;

Lhila & Simon, 2010; McCall, Land & Parker, 2010; Saito et al., 2014). This implies

that relative and absolute deprivation are multidimensional, explaining not only crime

but also other social issues (Crosby, 1976; Rosenfeld, Baumer, & Messner, 2001;

Runciman, 1966). Scholars have suggested that relative deprivation has the strongest

influence on criminal and social issues in urbanized areas where resources are dispro-

portionately accessible (Ravallion & Lokshin, 2010). An enduring concern in crimi-

nology is “what part does absolute deprivation play in the relationship between relative

deprivation and crime?” However, the majority of research to date explains the impact

each concept has separately, and not collectively, on crime. The present study seeks to

partially fill this gap in the literature by examining relative and absolute deprivation as

complimentary concepts. To achieve this, the current study tests the effect income

inequality and disadvantage have on homicide counts in U.S. counties known to

police. In addition, the current study examines whether income inequality and disad-

vantage interact to explain homicide counts.

Literature Review

Relative Deprivation and Crime

Relative deprivation has been studied at both the micro and macro levels (Chamberlain

& Hipp, 2015; Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999; Yitzhaki, 1979). The concept

of relative deprivation has generally been defined as a feeling of economic deprivation

in comparison with one’s peers (Eibner & Evans, 2005), and this feeling can nega-

tively impact individuals in a number of ways. In terms of theory, the importance of

relative deprivation for the study of deviance has been framed within the theoretical

tradition of anomie/strain (Agnew, 1992; Agnew, Cullen, Burton, Evans, & Dunaway,

1996; Baumer & Gustafson, 2007; Merton, 1938; Messner & Rosenfeld, 2012). This

framing makes sense, as unfavorable comparisons of one’s self with others can create

feelings of stress (Oshio, Nozaki, & Kobayashi, 2011). When access to resources is

not spread evenly within a geographic area that individuals identify with, feelings of

strain and frustration can lead to deviancy for those who see themselves as having less

than some reference group to which they feel similar (Agnew, 1999; Hipp, 2007).

People may feel similarity to others based on macro-level factors, such as residing in

the same neighborhood, community, city, county, state, and so on, and derive feelings

of inequality based on these factors (Agnew, 1999).

This focus in the literature concerning relative deprivation on comparing one’s con-

ditions with similar others is what sets it apart from other popular macro-level con-

cepts, which tend to focus more on absolute conditions. The focus on relative conditions

and comparing one’s self with others relates specifically to homicide because, in the

view of anomie/strain theory, having one’s chances at success, wealth, and prestige

constrained by society, or being denied the resources and rewards they believe they

need, expect, or desire, can result in stress that acts as a motivation for aggression and

violence (Messner & Rosenfeld, 1999).