To retaliate or not to retaliate? Psychologists are digging deeper into how people perceive revenge and revengeful people

Revenge is often considered socially inappropriate and morally condemned—a form of “wild justice.” Most people agree that revenge is immoral. On the other hand, people love stories in which the victim effectively takes revenge on the offender. In addition, previous research has also confirmed that people naturally favor revenge.

Thus, the research team of Professor Karoline Dydukh-Khazar (Julius-Maximilians University of Würzburg, Germany) and Professor Dr. Mario Gollwitzer (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany) studied whether people actually morally condemn the act of revenge itself or rather the pleasure that the avenger may experience.

In a series of four surveys—three with carefully selected groups of Polish students and one with a similarly configured sample of American adults—the researchers noted intriguing differences between situations in which perpetrators reported taking pride in committing revenge versus enjoying it, and between situations in which survey participants imagined themselves as imaginary avengers versus being mere observers.

In their study, published open access in the journal Social Psychological Bulletin, the team confirmed that even though people who commit revenge may receive approval, they are still morally condemned compared to those who choose not to take revenge.

Interestingly, when survey participants rated hypothetical situations in which avengers demonstrated satisfaction with their actions, they were rated as more competent (meaning confident, capable, effective) than imaginary people who felt bad about taking revenge on their offenders, or those who did not take revenge at all.

Here the researchers explain that revenge and subsequent satisfaction are perceived rather as proof of the actor's ability to achieve goals.

On the other hand, when imaginary avengers were described as experiencing pleasure, survey participants viewed them as particularly immoral.

"Feelings of pleasure after revenge may signal that the original motivation was not to teach the offender a moral lesson, but rather to feel good - a selfish and morally questionable motivation," the scientists comment.

Interestingly, there were significant differences between the same scenarios where survey participants imagined themselves as avengers and those where they were simply observers. When they imagined themselves committing revenge, participants viewed themselves as less moral than, say, a colleague doing the same thing.

In addition, if someone else had committed the revenge, that person would have appeared more competent. These results, the authors say, contradict previous research that shows that when evaluating others, their actions are assessed from a moral perspective, whereas self-assessment is usually based on competence.

Among other interesting findings from the series of surveys, the researchers noted that the impression of feeling good (versus bad) about revenge did not affect the likelihood of revenge.

On average, participants said they would not punish their transgressor. Moreover, fear of being judged themselves was found to have no effect on whether they would retaliate or not.

While they report a number of interesting findings, most of which contrast with previous knowledge and conclusions, the researchers note several limitations of their study that require further research to confirm their observations.

First, their findings may be culturally specific. They recall that, for example, vigilantes are not judged as harshly in societies and countries where honor is especially valued. Second, the surveys used hypothetical situations.

Finally, the study authors note that participants simply had to imagine revenge and the resulting good/bad feelings.