This project will involve the overview of a specific theory that is discussed in the book or in the articles/studies and how it explains why cybercrime happens and why individuals take part in cyber crimes

Introduction to the Relative Deprivation Theory

Elaboration of Relativeness

Relationship between Relative Deprivation and Involvement in Cyber Crime

Personal Opinion about the Relative Deprivation Theory Premises

Conclusion

As described by Social theorists, as well as political scientists, the relative deprivation theory proposes that individuals who have the feeling that they have been deprived of something that they considered as essential within their life (for instance, rights, money, political voice, as well as status among others) are highly like to organize or even join social movements that are dedicated to pushing for the things that they feel they have been deprived. For instance, relative deprivation is considered to be part of the causes of the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement that was active in the American political scene in the course of the 1960s (Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). The said movement was fighting for the rights of the Black Americans as it was widely believed that they were not been treated equally with the White Americans not only socially but also legally. Similarly, gay people started the same-sex marriage movement for the purpose of pushing for the same legal recognition of gay marriages, which is currently enjoyed by straight people.

Within certain other cases, relative deprivation is considered to be the factor, which drives social disorder incidents such as civil wars, rioting, terrorism, and involvement in a crime. Putting into consideration the social deprivation is linked to crime, it can also be blamed for the spread of cybercrime.Within such a perspective, social movements, in addition to their associated acts of disorderliness can usually be linked to the grievances of individuals who have the feeling that they have been denied resources that they are entitled to.

The development of the relative deprivation concept is in most cases attributed to Robert K. Merton (a renowned American sociologist) and Walter Runciman (British statesman and sociologist). Robert K. Merton carried out research on the American soldiers in the course of WWII, whereby he established that soldiers within the Military Police turned out to be much less satisfied with the promotion activities as compared to the regular GIs. It is from that research that he came up with the concept of relative deprivation theory. However, it was Walter Runciman who developed the premier formal description of relative deprivation (Pettigrew, 2016). Runciman listed four conditions that are required so that the relative deprivation concept can be considered to be in the application. The four conditions that were brought up by Runciman included: an individual failing to have something; such an individual is aware of the other persons that have the thing; that individual is in great desire to possess the thing and lastly, the individual has the perception that they have a levelheaded opportunity of getting the thing.

It should be noted that Runciman established that there are two types of relative deprivation, which include “egoistic” relative deprivation, as well as “fraternalistic” relative deprivation. In accordance to Runciman's argument, the egoistic relative deprivation is usually ignited by a person's feelings of getting an unfair treatment, as compared to his or her peers who belong to the same group or social class. For instance, a worker who has the feeling that they deserved a promotion chance, which was awarded to their colleague, may have the feeling of being egoistically relatively deprived. On the other hand, the fraternalistic deprivation is in most cases linked to the massive group social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement. In that respect, it can be argued that it is the "egoistic" relative deprivation that best explains the involvement of individuals in cybercrime.

Developers of the Relative Deprivation Theory

It has been established that feelings of deprivation happen to be relative putting into consideration that they emerge from making comparisons to various social norms which are not absolute and, in most cases, they vary from time to time, as well as, from one place to another. It is such aspects that are used to distinguish relative deprivation from the objective deprivation. Objective deprivation is also termed as absolute deprivation or even absolute poverty and it is mostly experienced by the underprivileged individuals within the society (Esposito, 2018). This results to a vital conclusion, whereas the objective deprivation or poverty within the world has the chance of changing in the course of time, on the other hand, relative deprivation is set not to, given that social inequality remains persistent and certain humans happen to be better off as compared to others.

For purposes of gaining a better understanding of the above-mentioned concept, the following example can be put into consideration. In the year 1905, cars happened to be classified as a luxury; therefore, a person who would not afford one was not viewed or did not feel deprived. However, from the year 2010, when cars turned out to be common in almost all the societies around the globe, a person who is not in the position of acquiring one is highly likely to feel deprived (Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). Within some other example, as at present, mobile phones happen to be common, and the majority of the people have the feeling that they should have one. Half a century ago, during which mobile phones were inexistent, such a sentiment could definitely not exist. From another perspective, relative deprivation may happen to be temporal; that is, it is mostly experienced by individuals that experience the need to expand their wealth or rights, which is followed by reversal or stagnation of the said gains. A phenomenon of that nature is in other words referred to as unfulfilled rising expectations. For instance, within the political arena, the failure to have the right of voting or taking part in the election process is highly likely to bring about a life of deprivation to the individuals that previously had it as compared to the individuals who never had such a right in the past.

   Various empirical studies have been carried out in the attempt to establish the relative deprivation versus crime relationship, whereby diverse research findings have been obtained. Most of the researches focus on the examination of actual relative deprivation through the use of quantitative methods to aggregate, area-based data. By operationalizing actual relative deprivation in respect to disparities within personal income, such studies have made an attempt to illustrate the connection between income inequality and the respective crime rate within a certain area. From the studies, it has been established that the individuals that earn low incomes are highly likely to have a perception of relative deprivation, and thus their probability to indulge in criminal activities turns out to be relatively high (Smith & Huo, 2014).

   It can thus be argued that people indulge in criminal activities as a result of having the feeling that they are deprived once they compare their fate to that of other persons who they considered to be more affluent as compared to themselves (hence relative deprivation). The lack of opportunities to have their affluence increased through legal or legitimate channels, for instance, paid employment or running a business, and having access to illegitimate chances that are readily available for their exploitation, they venture into crime with the objective of reducing their deprivation (Esposito, 2018).

Even though there is the likelihood that the hypothesized impact of relative deprivation tends to encompass every sort of crime, without needing to ask, it may happen to be specifically useful in explaining the involvement within cybercrimes. For a person undergoing relative deprivation and lacks the legal or authorized channels that he or she can exploit for purposes of making better his or her state of affairs, getting involved within cybercrime to obtain what they desired, is highly likely to seem to be a reasonable solution to the alleged problem.

   From a criminological point of view, relative deprivation, which can either be actual or perceived, may offer explanations for the reasons as to why specific persons opt to act against the societal norms and indulge in cybercrime related activities. The type of cybercrime that can be best explained through the use of the relative deprivation theory is identity theft. Identity theft, which is also termed as identity fraud refers to the scenario whereby an individual wrongly obtains and utilizes another individual’s personal data within some way which entails deception, mostly for economic gain (Esposito, 2018). Even before the invention of the internet, identity theft happened to be a major issue, but it is common sense to say that the virtual world has exacerbated the problem given that it has become relatively easier for criminals to obtain and steal one's identity. Identity scams have in recent years become prevalent online and they usually come in the form of spam email, being redirected to another website, and in other cases through an online pop-up survey. The other major identity theft contributor is phishing.

   The spam email becomes dangerous one responds to it. Typically, a good number of individuals respond to unsolicited e-mails, which promise them certain benefits but asks for identification data, without being aware that in most cases, the stranger that made the request does not have any intention of living to the promise. On the contrary, their main objective of the sender of the spam email to obtain as much personal information of the targeted victim. Upon having sufficient identifying information regarding a person (such as one’s dates of birth, official names, present or past addresses) the criminal takes over that person’s identity and uses it in carrying out diverse crimes. For instance: false application for credit cards or loans; making fraudulent withdrawals and acquiring products or services that the criminal would have been denied in the event he or she was to utilize his or her real name (Archer, 2012).

   Based on the description of identity fraud given above, it is outright that the pushing factor to perform such an inhuman act is the desire to be in the possession of some items or money that you have witnessed other people possess. As it was earlier pointed out, relative deprivation entails having the feeling that they are deprived once they compare their fate to that of other persons who they considered to be more affluent as compared to themselves, which suits the just outlined turn of events. Based on the aspect that relative deprivation explains the scenario within which a person desires thing that they have seen with others, the stealing of one's identity for purposes of unscrupulously making an economical gain fulfills the provisions of the said theory (Archer, 2012).

   It can be argued that the feeling that one is deprived is fueled by the environment within which an individual resides. This is due to the fact that the more contact that one has with the wealthier, as well as luxurious world, the highly likely that they would be desiring the world’s artifacts. From that perspective, it is outright that an unemployed individual who witnesses almost all his working friends obtain expensive products or services through the use of the credit card is more likely to develop the desire to steal their personal details so that he can succeed to swindle them off their funds and at least know it feels to be big moneyed (Esposito, 2018). Just as it was explained under the description of the relative deprivation theory, such a person opts to indulge in the illegitimate way of obtaining money through identity theft as a result of being unemployed, thereby lacking a legitimate source of income.

   In my perspective, the relative deprivation theory premises tend to make sense, as they give a straightforward explanation about the factors that push an individual into the world of crime. It is outright that most people develop the feeling of being relatively or objectively deprived once they start comparing themselves with others who they consider to be well off as compared to them. In all societies around the world, people differ in terms of their wealth, income sources, and even lifestyle (Pettigrew, 2016). It is such differences that are likely to make one think of illegitimate ways of amassing wealth such as getting involved in identity theft (which is part of the biggest cybercrime activities). Besides, no matter the type of socio-economic class that one belongs tip, a person is highly likely to experience actual relative deprivation upon making comparisons to the more advantaged classes. Most importantly, the theory has been split into two (relative and absolute deprivation) for purposes of ensuring that people differentiate the desire to have more based on what one has seen around him or her from the aspect of being under absolute poverty.

References

   As it has been showcased within the paper, there are various factors that push one to crime. The relative deprivation theory best explains the reasons that make a person consider involvement in cybercrime activities such as identity theft. Also, a careful review of the theory indicates that the theory can be utilized to develop strategies for combating cybercrime within the society. This is based on the aspect the theory clearly specifies the factors that push an individual to crime thus once the push factors have been analyzed and strategies formulated on how to neutralize or bring such factors under control. Nonetheless, there tend to be limited studies on the manner in which the relative deprivation theory can be applied in the prevention of crime as most of the studies focus on making use of the theory to explain the factors that push individuals to venture into the world of crime.

Archer, N. P. (2012). Identity theft and fraud: Evaluating and managing risk. Ottawa [Ont.: University of Ottawa Press.

Esposito, L. (2018). Relative deprivation and satisfaction: theoretical approaches. In Handbook of Research on Economic and Social Well-Being. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pettigrew, T. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual review of psychology, 67, 1-21.

Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2014). Relative deprivation: How subjective experiences of inequality influence social behavior and health. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 231-238.

Smith, H. J., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Advances in relative deprivation theory and research. Social Justice Research, 28(1), 1-6.