No abstract

This paper explores the vast literature on revenge and retributive punishment to ascertain whether revenge seekers are primarily seeking retribution or to deter future harm. This review considers research findings from social, consumer, evolutionary, and industrial/organizational psychology. Revenge is defined as an action in response to some perceived wrongdoing by another party that is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible. In support of the perspective that revenge is about retribution, vengeance is typically triggered only by unjust harms, revenge‐seekers report a moral imperative, justice beliefs predict revenge, and justice‐related information has the greatest influence on punishment calculations. On the other hand, a plethora of findings in economic games such as serial prisoner dilemmas reveal that tit‐for‐tat style revenge is an effective means of deterring future harm. Overall, the evidence seems to support a retribution model of revenge over a deterrence model; however, as this review describes in its conclusion, the psychology of revenge is in need of further investigation along several key dimensions.

In this investigation, we experimentally test the interaction of ego-depletion (low state self-control), consequences, and decision-making time on aggressive responses to an insult from a confederate. The results indicate that ego-depleted participants respond more quickly and aggressively to an insult from a confederate. However, when a 30-second decision-making delay is imposed, ego-depleted participants reduce their aggression, but only if there are external consequences to being aggressive. In the absence of such consequences, ego-depleted participants become more aggressive following a delay. Additionally, if a distracting cognitive load disrupts the 30-second delay, aggression levels do not change significantly, even if there are consequences. These results suggest people respond to aggressive triggers more impulsively when ego-depleted.There is an adage that one should "count to ten" before responding to an anger-invoking provocation. However, psychological science is ambivalent on this technique; noting that although it is sometimes effective, in other cases, it is known to backfire. We suggest that when self-control is compromised, individuals respond more quickly to aggressive triggers, and thus, fail to fully consider consequences. This more rapid and impulsive decision making may partially explain why individuals respond more aggressively when they are experiencing low self-control. Thus, when self-control is low, a brief delay may help reduce aggression, but only if the delay assists the individual to identify consequences.

No abstract