magazine issue 5 2012 / Issue 15

When does revenge taste sweet? A short tale of revenge

• written by Arne Sjöström
• edited by Reine van der Wal

In line with these findings, a study conducted by Mario Gollwitzer and Markus Denzler in 2009 demonstrated that after participants took revenge, aggression-related thoughts were inhibited. This seems to be another positive effect of taking revenge. However, and importantly, this was only true for certain conditions, but we will get to that later. Further support for this notion comes from Arlene Stillwell and her colleagues (2008). They found the same effect in the opposite direction, such that people who did not engage in revenge after being provoked felt angrier.

On the contrary, there are also findings that indicate that revenge may not always be beneficial for the avenger. In a study reported by Kevin Carlsmith and colleagues (2008), people who took revenge were less satisfied compared to those who did not have a chance to take revenge, or those who only fantasized about taking revenge. Specifically, avengers seemed to ruminate more about their “tantalizer” and whether they really “got even” by way of their retribution.

Regardless of these conflicting results, the evidence described above suggests that there is some truth in the popular expression that “revenge tastes sweet”. This brings up the question: When exactly does it feel good to take revenge, and what makes revenge taste so sweet?

Delivering a Message or Equalizing Pain?

Gollwitzer and colleagues (Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmitt, 2011) suggest that there are two general ways in which revenge is experienced positively. First, it may be the urge to see the offender suffer the way oneself did. This implies that an equal level of suffering between oneself and the harm-doer may lead to the feeling of satisfaction, whereby it should not matter whether the victim is responsible for the revenge (just so long as the offender comes to suffer). Thus, seeing the pants of my scheming colleague rip during a presentation would be satisfying to me even if I am not personally responsible for his bad luck. We refer to this as the so-called “comparative suffering hypothesis” (Frijda, 1994). An alternative notion holds that it is more likely that revenge aims to deliver a message to the offender. Perhaps we want to make clear that the perpetrator did something very wrong and therefore needs to be punished. When this message hits home, we may feel satisfied. We refer to this assumption as the so-called “understanding hypothesis”. Reviewing the existing evidence, there are reasonable arguments for both hypotheses.

For the first hypothesis, an offense causes an affective imbalance between the offender and the victim, and in turn the victim tries to reduce this imbalance (see Frijda, 1994). This goal can only be fulfilled when the harm-doer experiences harm comparable to the amount of harm the victim endured. There are indeed studies that provide support for this “comparative suffering” notion. For example, when people learn that the offender suffers a misfortune, observers’ tendency to deliver punishment diminishes (e.g., Austin, 1979). The second hypothesis, the “understanding” hypothesis,puts an emphasis on communication between victim and offender. In this case, it is important that the offender realizes that revenge was imposed on him, because his or her prior behavior (cf. Miller, 2001).