Group Deprivation Divides Across Different Societal Spheres

In many Western countries, immigration has become the key issue that structures political polarization (Kriesi et al. 2008; 2012). Recent studies emphasize that reactions to immigration are shaped less by objective conditions than by a subjective sense of group relative deprivation (Cramer 2016; Hochschild 2016). This sense, of being left behind and of losing social status relative to immigrants and minority groups, has been empirically linked to endorsement of anti-immigration policies, opposition to multiculturalism and the support for populist radical right-wing parties (Gest 2016; Gheorghiu et al. 2022; Gidron and Hall 2017; Uysal and Turper 2025). Importantly, the notion of group relative deprivation not only captures an identity-based component (through in- versus out-group comparisons); it also carries an affective dimension (through a sense of unfairness), based on some moral outlook (such as equality, need, or reciprocity). Accordingly, this intermediary concept between social psychology, sociology and political science, neatly fits with a burgeoning literature that stresses the importance of understanding citizens’ self-identifications, group distinctions and moral intuitions to adequately come to grips with contemporary political divides (Bornschier et al. 2024; Damhuis and Westheuser 2024; Zollinger 2022). Thus far, the role of (group) relative deprivation has largely been understood in material terms (Burgoon et al. 2019), even though it may also refer to immaterial disadvantages (Zollinger and Häusermann 2024). The point, though, is that we actually know very little of the spheres in which citizens do or do not feel “left behind” (e.g. in the workplace, qua health care, housing, law and judicial practice, etc.). Similarly, we only have very limited knowledge pertaining to the symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Molnár 2002) as well as the moral intuitions (Damhuis and Westheuser 2024) people draw on when distinguishing ingroups from outgroups in these domains. Finally, it remains to be determined whether feelings of group relative deprivation, symbolic boundaries and moral intuitions manifest themselves differently across societal spheres, and whether they are especially pronounced within particular social and electoral groups. To enhance our understanding in these matters, our exploratory study combines both quantitative and qualitative data. More specifically, the study is based on an original representative survey including multiple open-ended questions (approximately 1,250 respondents), as well as on four focus groups (32 participants in total), both to be fielded in March–April 2026 in the Netherlands. While the survey is well-suited to identify the domains in which (different groups of) citizens do (not) experience feelings of group relative deprivation (through closed-ended questions) and systematically map the related group distinctions (through open-ended questions); our focus groups allow us to examine how citizens morally articulate experiences of group relative deprivation. Drawing on the complementary strengths of survey and focus-group data, this paper thus offers important insights into the affective, identity-based, and moral foundations of contemporary political conflict, as it reveals the social and political dimensions of group relative deprivation and the moral meanings attached to these experiences.