This investigation explored the provocations that spark intimates’ desires for revenge, the kinds of vengeful responses they enact, and the motives that underlie decisions to retaliate. Eighty-five undergraduates were interviewed about incidents in which they “got even” with a current or former romantic partner. Both provocations and revenge responses predominately involved relationship rules violations, and most revenge responses were mild to moderate in severity and mundane in nature. In addition, most participants attributed their decisions to retaliate to the desire to bring about desired change in their partners (e.g., suffering, correction, or empathy), to redress their own unpleasant feelings, or to rectify injustice. Implications for research on revenge in romantic relationships are discussed.

Despite valuable lessons that may be learned about forgiveness from studying instances when people do not forgive, few investigations have directly targeted unforgiven offenses. the present study extends the literature on forgiveness by analyzing responses to open-ended questions in which 185 participants discussed interpersonal offenses they had not forgiven, explained why they did not forgive, and identified advantages and disadvantages of not forgiving. unforgiven episodes varied substantially in type and severity, suggesting that people differ in their forgiveness thresholds. additionally, analysis of participants' explanations for not forgiving highlighted the possibility that beliefs about forgiveness may sometimes impede forgiveness. Finally, most participants reported both costs and benefits associated with not forgiving. implications for conceptualizing forgiveness and implementing forgiveness interventions are discussed.Despite a burgeoning literature on forgiveness, the systematic study of situations in which individuals do not forgive is in its infancy. The present study sought to build on the relatively small body of

The present investigation explored individuals' (N ϭ 58) retrospective accounts of the costs and benefits associated with acts of revenge they had committed against a current or past romantic partner. Content analysis of participants' responses to a semistructured interview revealed that, consistent with claims that revenge can have constructive as well as destructive consequences, participants described both good and bad outcomes associated with their vengeful acts. There was little evidence, however, that they perceived the consequences of revenge as achieving prosocial ends (i.e., as having benefited their partners/ relationships or others) and, overall, participants seemed to believe that they, rather than others, had profited from their vengeful actions.

The reasons people offered to explain why they resisted the desire to retaliate when provoked by a romantic partner were investigated in two studies. Undergraduates recalled an instance when they wanted to get even with a romantic partner but chose not to and either explained their reasons for foregoing revenge (Study 1, N = 27) or selected reasons from a checklist (Study 2, N = 91). Results suggest people succumb to the temptation to take revenge when they (a) do not stop to question the morality of responding vengefully, (b) do not consider the costs of retaliating (or perceive its benefits to outweigh its costs), or (c) weigh the harm that vengeance might cause their avengee/relationship less heavily than its benefits.The frequency with which acts of revenge are observed in current events, historical record, and drama and literature led emotion theorist Nico Frijda (1994) to argue that the desire for vengeance ranks among the most powerful of human passions. Nevertheless, for all its power, people appear to act on the desire for vengeance rather infrequently. In fact, two recent studies suggest that the most common response to perceived provocation

No abstract