University Of Arkansas Psychologists Seek Revenge

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Two researchers at the University of Arkansas have found that, given a chance to exact revenge, four out of five people will opt to turn the other cheek. But beware the one out of five who do seek revenge — these people want to do more than just settle the score.

David Schroeder, chair of the psychology department, and graduate student Julie Steel have spent the past two years designing experiments to examine the motivations behind revenge and to test how far people will go to settle a score. They present the results of their latest study this Saturday, Feb. 5, at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology meeting in Nashville, Tenn.

"When someone has 'done you wrong,’ there’s both an emotional and behavioral reaction," said Schroeder. "People feel compelled to restore justice, and that’s what we typically think of as revenge. We wanted to know more about what motivates that response and how people carry it out."

As the first in a series of experiments, Schroeder and Steel recruited 40 subjects and separated them into groups of four. For participating in the study, each subject received 10 lottery tickets to be entered in a drawing for a $50 gift certificate. Additionally, they had the opportunity to contribute some of their lottery tickets to a collective fund. If this fund reached a high enough balance, a bonus of 20 lottery chances would be distributed to each subject.

Schroeder and Steel sequestered each set of subjects and informed them that their group had contributed enough to the collective fund. However, they would not receive the bonus tickets because one member of another group had refused to donate enough, and therefore the collective fund had not reached a high enough balance.

This obstinate group member — the defector — had deprived more cooperative participants of their bonus. Schroeder and Steel wanted to see if the slighted subjects would seek retribution.

During the study, each group had been instructed to build three-dimensional, geometric shapes out of construction paper. Subsequently, each subject had the opportunity to evaluate other people’s work — including that of the defector. Surprisingly, only 20 percent of the subjects used the opportunity to exact revenge, said Schroeder. But those who did showed a determined ruthlessness.

"The eight subjects who sought revenge did more than just settle the score," said Steel. "They made sure that the defector lost more lottery chances than he had caused them to lose."

Schroeder and Steel believe that more subjects wanted to seek retribution but refrained from doing so because of their role within the group.

"In asking subjects to evaluate people’s work, we assigned them the role of supervisor," Schroeder said. "That position comes with a strict set of behavioral norms. A good manager sets aside personal differences in the interest of fairness, objectivity and professionalism."

In order to seek revenge, subjects had to violate these well-known social values. Eighty percent were unwilling to do so. Employees might breathe a sigh of relief to hear that the responsibilities of power usually outweigh the temptation of revenge, ".but you wouldn’t want your boss to be among that other 20 percent," Schroeder said.

The researchers also tested to see if a greater loss — 50 lottery chances rather than 20 — would trigger a greater degree of retribution. They found that the magnitude of the loss did not significantly impact the revenge that was sought, indicating that subjects weren’t motivated by what they lost but simply by the fact that they had lost it.

"It’s almost scary — the fact that losing something as trivial as lottery chances would cause someone to seek revenge," said Steel. "It makes you wonder what would happen if they lost something really valuable."

In addition to testing how subjects acted toward the defector, Schroeder and Steel also tested how subjects felt about the defector. After the experiment, participants filled out personal evaluations on the other subjects. Even those who chose not to seek revenge reported disliking the defector. Compared to other subjects, they deemed him more competitive, less trustworthy and less concerned for the welfare of the group. Some even refused to work with him on future projects.

Through future studies, Schroeder and Steel hope to examine some of these more subtle reactions to betrayal. They also hope to clarify their work on revenge, testing its motives and manifestations and even trying to determine if it truly is a dish that’s best served cold.

One thing’s certain — they won’t lack subjects. The need for revenge seems to be intrinsically linked to human nature, serving its own dark but necessary purpose.

"I think people use retribution to teach others about appropriate behavior," said Steel. "Maybe it’s not our best quality as human beings, but it isn’t done purely out of cruelty or malice. It has its own function within society."