Researchers have failed to specify when crime and counter-normative actions, as opposed to other responses may occur as a consequence of relative deprivation. To clarify this issue, a mediational model was developed that specified the causal processes leading from the recognition of deprivation to crime and counter-normative actions. This model hypothesizes that the recognition of deprivation (cognitive relative deprivation) leads to feelings associated with this recognition (affective relative deprivation) which in turn leads to crime and counter-normative actions. This model applies to both personal and group deprivation. In both cases, the feelings associated with deprivation include anger, resentment, dissatisfaction, and discontent. Data from a sample of 950 males between the ages of 16 to 30 supported the mediational model. Moderator variables were hypothesized to influence the causal processes in the mediational model, and were thus employed to specify the conditions under which the recognition of deprivation became more likely to lead to intense emotional reactions, and the conditions under which these emotional reactions became more likely to lead to crime and counter-normative actions. Personal deprivation was found to lead to stronger emotional responses if persons were pessimistic about their deprivation being relieved in the future, while at the group level, higher levels of optimism were related to stronger emotional responses. Both types of deprivation also lead to stronger emotional responses when persons believe that financial success and wealth are important. The emotive responses for both personal and group deprivation, in turn, were more likely to lead to crime and counter-normative actions if deprived persons had criminal peers. It was also found that the recognition of personal deprivation was more likely to lead to depression and lower self-esteem if people blamed themselves for their deprivation than if they did not. Persons who were not optimistic that their deprivation would be relieved in the future were more depressed than persons who were optimistic. Persons whose in-group was deprived were more likely to have lower self-esteem if they blamed the in-group for its deprivation than if they did not.

A large part of the structure of the objects in the theory of Dooley and Wildberger [Funktsional. Anal. I Prilozhen. 27 (1993), no. 1, 25-32] and that of Rouviere [Compositio Math. 73 (1990), no. 3, 241-270] can be described by considering a connected, finite-dimentional symmetric space G/H (as defined by Rouviere), with ???exponential map???, Exp, from L G/L H to G/H, an action, ???: K ??? Aut??(G) (where Aut?? (G) is the projection onto G/H of all the automorphisms of G which leave H invariant), of a Lie group, K, on G/H and the corresponding action, ???# , of K on L G/L H defined by g ??? L (???g), along with a quadruple (s, E, j, E#), where s is a ???# - invariant, open neighbourhood of 0 in L G/L H, E is a test-function subspace of C??? (Exp s), j ?? C??? (s), and E# is a test-function subspace of C??? (s) which contains { j.f Exp: f ?? E }. Of interest is the question: Is the function ???: ?? ??? ????, where ??: f ??? j.f Exp, a local associative algebra homomorphism from F# with multiplication defined via convolution with respect to a function e: s x s ??? C, to F, with the usual convolution for its multiplication (where F is the space of all ??? - invariant distributions of E and F# is the space of all ???# - invariant distributions of E#)? For this system of objects, we can show that, to some extent, the choice of the function j is not critical, for it can be ???absorbed??? into the function e. Also, when K is compact, we can show that ??? ker ?? = { f ?? E : ???k f (???g) dg = 0}. These results turn out to be very useful for calculations on s2 ??? G/H, where G = SO(3) and H??? SO(3) with H ??? SO(2) with ??? : h ??? Lh, as we can use these results to show that there is no quadruple (s, E, j, E#) for SO(3)/H with j analytic in some neighbourhood of 0 such that ??? is a local homomorphism from F# to F. Moreover, we can show that there is more than one solution for the case where s, E and E# are as chosen by Rouviere, if e is does not have to satisfy e(??,??) = e(??,??).

No description available.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, 1968. / "April 1968." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of New South Wales, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references and index. Also available online.

Univ., Diss. u.d.T.: Tortell, Lisa Ann: The monetary remedy for breach of constitutional rights in the United States, India, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom--Oxford, 2002.

Zugl.: Erlangen, Nürnberg, Univ., Diss., 2007 / Includes bibliographical references (p. 369-388).

Mémoire de maitrise (M.Th.)--Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 1994. / Document électronique également accessible en format PDF. CaQCU

Th.--Droit--Bordeaux, 1882.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references.