Knowledge mapping of relative deprivation theory and its applicability in tourism research

The paper addresses how relative deprivation (RD)—a social-psychological perception of disadvantage arising from social comparison—can explain complex attitudes and behaviors among tourism stakeholders (tourists, host communities, practitioners). RD involves cognitive comparison, evaluation, and emotions (e.g., anger, resentment) and can be integrated with processes such as social support and social identity. Tourism contexts often feature uneven development and benefit distributions, demonstration effects, and interest conflicts, rendering RD prevalent. Importantly, complaints often come from relatively advantaged groups, highlighting the need to consider relative, not absolute, conditions. The study aims to map the RD knowledge base and assess its applicability to tourism research using CiteSpace, arguing RD offers unique explanatory power (e.g., for the “happiness paradox”) beyond commonly used tourism theories.

Originating in Stouffer’s work (1949) without an explicit definition, RD was developed via Merton’s reference group framework, Runciman’s four conditions (lack of X, awareness others have X, expectation to have X, and reasonableness), and Gurr’s expectation–capability discrepancy. RD stems from social comparisons, is subjective, and has been widely applied in sociology, psychology, and criminology to explain outcomes such as aggression, health, and gambling, with research into mediators, moderators, and measurement. RD can be horizontal/vertical (intertemporal) and individual/group-based. Emotions linked to fairness and justice are central, and affective responses mediate behavior. In tourism, Seaton (1997) introduced RD to explain resident reactions to tourists’ demonstration effects; later work explored residents’ perceptions, causes, consequences, coping, mechanisms, and attitudes. However, empirical tourism studies often treat RD as a mediating variable and remain exploratory, indicating a need for broader theoretical development and application in tourism.

The study employs CiteSpace (v5.3R3) for citation-space analysis and knowledge mapping based on co-citation theory and the pathfinder algorithm. Key interpretive indicators include high betweenness centrality (landmark, structure-bridging works), citation bursts (frontier shifts), and high-frequency nodes (foundational works). Data were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection using the theme “relative deprivation,” restricted to research articles. After manual screening to remove irrelevant records, 1509 valid items (1956–2018) were retained (retrieved July 2018). For clustering, thresholds were set to Top50 per time slice; cluster labels were derived via LLR (log-likelihood ratio). Mapping quality was evaluated using modularity Q (>0.3 indicates significant structure) and silhouette (Si) where values >0.7 indicate convincing clusters.

• Dataset and analysis: 1509 research articles on relative deprivation (1956–2018) from WoS; CiteSpace settings Top50 and LLR labeling; clustering quality strong (Si > 0.7; Q > 0.3).
• Knowledge base/clusters (12 clusters, representative sizes and Si): subjective well-being (85; Si≈0.86), income inequality (79; Si≈0.89), interactive effect (61; Si≈0.93), personal relative deprivation (59; Si≈0.85), socioeconomic inequalities (48; Si≈0.96), multilevel study (45; Si≈0.98), dramatic social change (44; Si≈0.93), intergroup attitude (33; Si≈0.96), group-based RD (26; Si≈0.90), integrating RD theory (24; Si≈0.97), aligning identities (23; Si≈0.97), global poverty measure (20; Si≈0.98). The largest cluster (subjective well-being) grew from 2004, cooled after 2014; key bridging node around 2007 connected to income inequality and dramatic social change.
• Hotspots and frontiers: High-frequency/high-centrality terms include relative deprivation, sleep deprivation (as a term in databases), income inequality, social identity, mortality rates, self-rated health, relative risk, reference group, social comparison, deprivation index. Burst terms indicating frontiers: social justice, social deprivation, social identity, reference groups, collective action, personal relative deprivation, relative importance, and RD theory—covering influencing factors, measurement (RD model/index), and effects (health, subjective well-being, attitudes, collective action).
• Research framework: RD research spans generation contexts (dramatic social change, socioeconomic inequality, relative poverty), levels (individual/group), types (horizontal/vertical), influencing factors (age, social identity, social justice, relative importance), degree measurement (RD model/index), and outcomes (physical/mental health, subjective well-being, intergroup attitudes, collective action). Two streams dominate: RD as mediator of attitudes/behaviors versus theoretical exploration of RD’s causes, conditions, and processes.
• Applicability to tourism: The RD framework aligns with tourism realities (multi-stakeholder conflicts, uneven benefits). RD helps explain phenomena like the “happiness paradox” and complaints by relatively advantaged groups. Tourism contexts present practical challenges and opportunities for theoretical innovation (e.g., stakeholder interactions, destination life cycle effects).

Findings indicate that RD theory has a robust, multi-cluster knowledge base with clear hotspots (e.g., social identity, justice, inequality) and measurable constructs, enabling application to tourism’s complex stakeholder environment. In destinations undergoing rapid socioeconomic change, RD is likely and can drive attitudes, support or resistance, and conflict. RD uniquely captures relative evaluations that other tourism theories struggle to explain (e.g., why objectively advantaged residents may be less satisfied). The paper argues for applying RD across multiple stakeholders (tourists, practitioners, residents), examining interactions among them, and integrating RD with stakeholder theory, social exchange theory, game theory, and destination life cycle models. It also calls for advancing RD theory by probing its generation basis (reference-group choice, social comparisons), generation paths (conditions under which upward/downward comparisons yield deprivation), temporal dynamics (stability vs immediacy; accumulation/dissipation over time), and the interplay with relative gratification in tourism settings. These directions both address tourism issues and extend RD theory.

The study contributes by (1) producing a CiteSpace knowledge map of RD that delineates its knowledge base (12 robust clusters), hotspots, frontiers, and an overarching research framework; (2) demonstrating that RD’s framework aligns well with tourism research needs and outlining application directions centered on multi-interest subjects and multidimensional content; and (3) proposing how tourism contexts can foster theoretical advances in RD (generation basis, paths, and evolution; relations with relative gratification; integration with other theories). The paper recommends systematically introducing RD theory to better explain stakeholder attitudes and behaviors in tourism, especially paradoxes not addressed by existing theories. Future work should explicitly relate RD to destination life cycle stages and stakeholder games, and develop cross-theoretical models to enhance explanatory power.

Interpretation of knowledge maps may reflect authors’ subjective judgment and knowledge base; CiteSpace’s algorithms and functions may underweight important, recently published works; the tourism discussion is at a broad level and may have overlooked crucial studies; results depend on WoS coverage and manual screening. Future studies should deepen empirical tourism applications, refine measurement in tourism contexts, and address potential omissions.