Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Conflict Resolution
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brush, S. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Dynamics of Theory Change in the Social Sciences

Relative Deprivation and Collective Violence

Stephen G. Brush

Department of History and Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland at College Park

The extent to which theories in the social sciences are accepted or rejected on the basis of empirical tests can be shown only by a detailed analysis of specific cases. The author examines the reception by social scientists in the 1970s and early 1980s of T. R. Gurr's theory of collective violence based on the concept of relative deprivation. The history of this theory may be considered an example of definite progress in social science: a hypothesis widely accepted at one time has been tested and rejected, thus making room for the development of alternative hypotheses. But although Gurr and other advocates of the theory have abandoned it in its original form following the mostly negative results of empirical tests, many social scientists (especially psychologists) have continued to cite it favorably. Slightly less than half of the unfavorable citations have been supported by references to empirical evidence.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, No. 4, 523-545 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002796040004001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theoretical CriminologyHome page
C. Webber
Revaluating relative deprivation theory
Theoretical Criminology, February 1, 2007; 11(1): 97 - 120.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science polHome page
S. Lowrance
Identity, Grievances, and Political Action: Recent Evidence from the Palestinian Community in Israel
International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, April 1, 2006; 27(2): 167 - 190.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
P. M. Regan and D. Norton
Greed, Grievance, and Mobilization in Civil Wars
Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2005; 49(3): 319 - 336.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
F. Boen and N. Vanbeselaere
The Relative Impact of Socio-Structural Characteristics on Behavioral Reactions Against Membership in a Low-Status Group
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2002; 5(4): 299 - 318.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
E. A. Henderson and J. D. Singer
Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92
Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 2000; 37(3): 275 - 299.
[Abstract] [PDF]