Cited by 48Health disparities and outcomesPsychology and Mental HealthEmployment and Welfare Studies

Why does relative deprivation affect mental health? The role of justice, trust and social rank in psychological wellbeing and paranoid ideation

Wickham, Sophie, Shryane, Nick, Lyons, Minna, Dickins, Thomas, Bentall, Richard·2014·Journal of Public Mental Health

Abstract

Purpose – Relative deprivation is associated with poor mental health but the mechanisms responsible have rarely been studied. The purpose of this paper is to hypothesize that childhood perceived relative deprivation (PRD) would be linked to sub-syndromal psychotic symptoms and poor wellbeing via beliefs about justice, trust and social rank. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 683 undergraduate students were administered measures of childhood PRD, hallucination-proneness, paranoia and wellbeing and measures of trust, social rank and beliefs about justice. A subsample supplied childhood address data. Multiple mediation analysis was used to assess pathways from childhood experiences to outcomes. Findings – Childhood PRD was associated with all three outcomes. The relationship between PRD and paranoia was fully mediated by perceptions that the world is unjust for the self and low social rank. The same variables mediated the relationship between PRD and poor wellbeing. There were no significant mediators of the relationship between PRD and hallucination-proneness. Research limitations/implications – Although our outcome measures have been validated with student samples, it may not be representative. The study is cross-sectional with a retrospective measure of PRD, although similar results were found using childhood addresses to infer objective deprivation. Further studies are required using prospective measures and patient samples. Social implications – Social circumstances that promote feelings of low social worth and injustice may confer risk of poor psychological outcome. Ameliorating these circumstances may improve population mental health. Originality/value – Improvements in public mental health will require an understanding of the mechanisms linking adversity to poor outcomes. This paper explores some probable mechanisms which have hitherto been neglected.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jpmh-06-2013-0049

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wickham, S., Shryane, N., Lyons, M., Dickins, T., & Bentall, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Liverpool Hope University (GB)
  • Middlesex University London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Public Mental Health
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
114-126
ISSN
1746-5729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063799699
Cited by
48
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
Keywords
relative deprivation, mental health, paranoia, paranoid ideation, hallucination proneness, perceived injustice, trust, social rank, psychological well-being, mediation, childhood adversity

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