CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 202Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionSocial Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation.

Greitemeyer, Tobias, Sagioglou, Christina·2016·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/pspi0000058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Seven studies (overall N = 3690) addressed the relation between people's subjective socioeconomic status (SES) and their aggression levels. Based on relative deprivation theory, we proposed that people low in subjective SES would feel at a disadvantage, which in turn would elicit aggressive responses. In 3 correlational studies, subjective SES was negatively related to trait aggression. Importantly, this relation held when controlling for measures that are related to 1 or both subjective SES and trait aggression, such as the dark tetrad and the Big Five. Four experimental studies then demonstrated that participants in a low status condition were more aggressive than were participants in a high status condition. Compared with a medium-SES condition, participants of low subjective SES were more aggressive rather than participants of high subjective SES being less aggressive. Moreover, low SES increased aggressive behavior toward targets that were the source for participants' experience of disadvantage but also toward neutral targets. Sequential mediation analyses suggest that the experience of disadvantage underlies the effect of subjective SES on aggressive affect, whereas aggressive affect was the proximal determinant of aggressive behavior. Taken together, the present research found comprehensive support for key predictions derived from the theory of relative deprivation of how the perception of low SES is related to the person's judgments, emotional reactions, and actions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspi0000058

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 202

Related

Metadata

Authors
Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C.
Affiliations
Universität Innsbruck (AT)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
178-194
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/pspi0000058
OpenAlex
W2410597207
Cited by
202
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
24.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
subjective socioeconomic status, relative deprivation theory, aggression, trait aggression, aggressive affect, perceived disadvantage, Dark Tetrad, Big Five personality traits
MeSH terms
Adult, Aggression, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychosocial Deprivation, Social Class

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review