Relative Deprivation Revisited: A Response to Miller, Bolce, and Halligan
Faye J. Crosby
Yale University
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
This article challenges some of the conclusions drawn in “The J-Curve Theory and the Black Urban Riots,” by Abraham Miller, Louis Bolce and Mark Halligan (1977). Miller et al. reject relative deprivation theory and J-curve theory as valid explanations of black urban rioting. In my argument that Miller et al. are not justified in rejecting relative deprivation theory, I shall review four versions of relative deprivation theory to show how Miller et al. misrepresent the theory and to point out methodological problems with their operationalization of theoretical variables. Because these operationalization problems are far from atypical, I conclude with a call for greater methodological rigor.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Crime Patterns and Interventions
Race, History, and American Society · Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
参考文献 38
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 89
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条