UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Vengeful Decisions: The Role of Perceived Effectiveness and Costliness of Revenge
by
Kyler Rasmussen
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
CALGARY, ALBERTA
AUGUST, 2013
© Kyler Rasmussen 2013
Abstract
Conventional wisdom suggests that individuals who decide to get even are driven by their
emotions and cannot be swayed by considering the potential consequences of their actions. If this
is the case, then perceptions of revenge’s consequences—its effectiveness and costliness—should
be unrelated to the likelihood of taking revenge. The present study examined the relationships
between these variables among 199 undergraduates. We had participants imagine that their
romantic partners had cheated on them, and asked them to list the consequences, both positive
and negative, of getting even, along with their perceptions of how effective and how costly
revenge would be. We also asked participants to rate their endorsement of particular goals
following a provocation. Ratings of revenge’s effectiveness are largely related to the positive
consequences of getting even, while ratings of revenge’s costliness are largely related to
revenge’s negative consequences. Goal endorsement is related to perceiving some potential
responses to a provocation as more effective than others. Judgments of effectiveness and
costliness predicted significant variance in the likelihood of engaging in revenge (R2 = .59)
suggesting that perceptions of effectiveness and costliness may play a more important role in
revenge decision making than previously thought. A significant Effectiveness X Costliness X
Anger interaction (β = .89, p = .02) helps clarify how such perceptions are related to the
likelihood of getting even. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Keywords: revenge, perceived consequences, justice
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the tremendous help and support of my supervisor, Dr. Susan Boon,
as well as the assistance of my thesis committee, including Dr. John Ellard, Dr. Theresa Kline
and Dr. Alex Bierman. I acknowledge financial support received from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Resource Council (SSHRC) without which I would not have been able to complete
this thesis. I am also grateful for the love and understanding of my wonderful wife Jeanette, as
well as the sustaining smiles of my daughter Calista.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
The Importance of Revenge ................................................................................................................. 2
Revenge in a Romantic Context .......................................................................................................... 4
Deciding to Take Revenge ................................................................................................................... 5
The Effectiveness and Costliness of Revenge ................................................................................... 7
Alternatives to Revenge ........................................................................................................................ 8
Correlates and Moderators of Costliness, Effectiveness, and Revenge ....................................... 10
Goal endorsement ........................................................................................................................... 10
Vengeance ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Emotional involvement.................................................................................................................. 12
The Present Study ................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 17
Participants and Procedure ................................................................................................................. 17
Materials ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Demographics ................................................................................................................................. 17
Social desirability ........................................................................................................................... 17
Vengeance ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Vignette............................................................................................................................................ 18
Goal endorsement ........................................................................................................................... 19
Effectiveness and costliness .......................................................................................................... 20
Emotional involvement manipulation.......................................................................................... 21
Likelihood of engaging .................................................................................................................. 21
Manipulation check ........................................................................................................................ 22
Chapter 3: Results .................................................................................................................................. 23
Revenge and Its Consequences .......................................................................................................... 23
Hypothesis 1: Validating Effectiveness and Costliness ................................................................. 24
Hypothesis 2: Goal Correspondence ................................................................................................. 26
v
Emotional Involvement Manipulation .............................................................................................. 27
Hypotheses 3, 4, & 5: Predicting the Likelihood of Taking Revenge .......................................... 28
Chapter 4: Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 32
The Construct of Perceived Effectiveness ....................................................................................... 32
Goal Correspondence and Perceived Effectiveness ........................................................................ 35
Predicting the Likelihood of Getting Even ...................................................................................... 38
Integration With Existing Literature ................................................................................................. 42
Social exchange theory and expected utility............................................................................... 42
Revenge in a romantic context ..................................................................................................... 43
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 45
External validity ............................................................................................................................. 45
Measurement limitations ............................................................................................................... 47
Emotional involvement manipulation.......................................................................................... 48
Generalizability............................................................................................................................... 50
Contributions ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Future Directions ................................................................................................................................. 51
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 53
References.................................................................................................................................................. 54
Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A: Materials ............................................................................................................................. 78
Appendix B: Consequences Coding Document ................................................................................... 97
Appendix C: Consent, Debriefing, Ethics, and Recruitment ............................................................106
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
The desire to get even is a desire almost everyone can relate to. The idea of turning the
other cheek, although a noble ideal, can be difficult to put into practice, especially within the
domain of our own minds. We are hurt by someone, and we often have the desire to hurt them
back, even if that desire never finds expression. It is that transition between the desire to take
revenge and the act of revenge itself that is the main concern of my research. I seek to
understand what it is that influences the decision to take revenge, especially in the context of a
romantic relationship.
A large part of understanding that decision is knowing what could hold someone back
from taking revenge. From recent research conducted by Boon, Alibhai, and Deveau (2011), it is
clear that revenge has negative consequences, consequences that avengers themselves are able to
identify and describe. These negative consequences, or costs, range from feelings of guilt and
shame to loss of the relationship. There is also a perception among avengers that revenge is
ineffective—in some cases at least, it does not give the avenger the result he or she desired. In
other words, not only did Boon and colleagues’ participants perceive revenge as having negative
consequences, but it lacked positive consequences as well. The question is, do perceptions
regarding the consequences of revenge play any role in the decision to take revenge in the first
place? If individuals perceive revenge to be costly and ineffective, would this stop them from
taking revenge, or would their emotions drive them to get even regardless?
Portrayals of revenge in the media (Govier, 2002), as well as lines of academic thought
(Horney, 1948), at times suggest the latter, characterizing potential avengers as individuals who
cannot be reasoned with or convinced to change their course of action (e.g., Nero, the villain
from the 2009 film Star Trek, who seeks revenge in the face of both Spock’s cold logic and
1
Captain Kirk’s threats of punishment). If the former is true, however, it would paint an entirely
different picture. People who consider taking revenge could be educated about the consequences
of getting even and perhaps be convinced to do otherwise.
In this thesis, I argue that how the consequences of revenge are perceived plays an
important role in revenge decision making. I detail a study wherein I presented participants with
a hypothetical revenge scenario, asking them to rate how likely they would be to take revenge in
the wake of a romantic partner’s infidelity. Based on social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibaut,
1978) and the concept of expected utility (Birnbaum, 2008), I hypothesized that perceptions of
revenge’s effectiveness and costliness would allow us to usefully predict the likelihood of taking
revenge.
The Importance of Revenge
Revenge has consequences, and much of research examining revenge has been done out
of a desire to prevent it, and its negative consequences, from taking place. Desires for revenge
have been almost universally considered negative and destructive. Clinicians have treated such
desires as pathology, with several courses of therapy encouraging individuals to let go of
vengeful thoughts and emotions (Summerfield, 2002). Organizations have long sought to
mitigate the costs associated with revenge in the workplace (Jones, 2009), both with individuals
seeking to get even with each other, as well as exacting revenge against the organization itself.
Within the relationships literature, revenge has been shown to have the potential to increase
distress and acrimony between romantic partners (Yoshimura, 2007). This focus on negative
consequences has led to a considerable stigma against vengeful behavior (Murphy, 2000).
Yet not all of the consequences of revenge are negative. Some, such as Murphy (2000)
have even argued that many of the supposed destructive aspects of revenge, such as ruminating
2
over a perceived harm, responding disproportionately, or engaging in reciprocal cycles of
revenge, are not necessarily tied to being vindictive. For Murphy, it is possible to both think
about and execute revenge while maintaining control, responding appropriately, and not being
unduly influenced by emotions. The validity of this idea has been bolstered by studies
qualitatively examining individual experiences with the consequences of revenge in romantic
relationships (Boon et al., 2011). Although negative consequences were certainly experienced by
those getting even, some also reported positive consequences. Within romantic relationships,
these positive consequences ranged from redressing negative affect, restoring justice, gaining a
sense of control over a situation, or even helping or protecting others. Similar positive
consequences were also noted for revenge in the workplace (Tripp & Bies, 1997).
If it is possible to mitigate the negative consequences of revenge, gain positive outcomes,
and to take the negative consequences into consideration, then it is possible to consider acts of
revenge as measured, reasoned responses to a perceived harm (Frijda, 1994). Evidence of this
possibility would, at least in some cases, allow the public and academia to see taking revenge as
an informed decision instead of an emotional knee-jerk reaction (Solomon, 1994). Understanding
the degree to which this is true may help remove the social and clinical stigma associated with
vindictive thoughts and behaviors. It may also, perhaps counter-intuitively, result in ascription of
a greater degree of culpability to those who choose to seek revenge through violent or illegal
means. Those who seek revenge are often portrayed, especially in popular culture, as
sympathetic figures not wholly responsible for their own actions (e.g., Dante, in The Count of
Monte Cristo, whose acts are deemed relatively pardonable in the wake of the injustices against
him; see Govier, 2002 for further examples). Some part of this sentiment may be due to the
perception that vengeful actions are driven by emotions, such as anger, that cannot be easily
3
controlled (Stearns & Stearns, 1989). Weakening that perception may remove a measure of that
sympathy, changing, for good or ill, how individuals perceive and react to avengers and acts of
vengeance.
Revenge in a Romantic Context
In examining revenge, I have chosen to focus on revenge in the context of a romantic
relationship. Such relationships are nearly ubiquitous, with the vast majority of human beings
involved with them or impacted by them in some measure or another (Giordano et al., 2001).
Romantic connections fill many of life’s important needs, yet also provide many of its more
salient negative experiences (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006; Keicolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). The
severing of these relationships, whether through death, divorce or separation, has been counted
among the most stressful events that individuals can endure (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Sbarra &
Emery, 2005; Sbarra et al, 2009). There is little doubt that acts occur between partners in a
relationship that cause harm and injury (Metts & Cupach, 2007), injury that can lead to desires
for revenge. As discussed above, whether one takes revenge against a partner can have
consequences for the continuation of a relationship. It could lead to negative outcomes, such as
negative affect, acrimonious feelings toward a romantic partner and, ultimately, dissolution of
the relationship. On the other hand, it could lead to more constructive outcomes, such as a
restoration of equity (Boon et al., 2011). An understanding of how revenge occurs in this context
may eventually help researchers to predict, and clinicians to control, how those outcomes play
out.
The research on revenge and its consequences in a romantic context has been growing
steadily over the last decade. Some have looked at the potential acts and circumstances in a
romantic relationship that could provoke revenge (Metts & Cupach, 2007). Others have focused
4
on documenting the behaviors (Boon, Alibhai, & Deveau, 2009; Guerrero & Anderson, 1998;
Yoshimura 2007) that could constitute taking revenge on a romantic partner, as well as the
motivations that drive them (Boon, Alibhai & Deveau, 2009), and the consequences that stem
from them (Boon, et al., 2011). Despite these initial inquiries, the mechanisms of how and why
revenge takes place within relationships are still dimly understood. In particular, the factors and
circumstances that encourage or discourage romantic revenge, factors that could lead some to
take revenge while others refrain, remains unexplored territory. Documenting and explaining
these factors may suggest ways to shape revenge decision making, allowing clinicians and
researchers to construct interventions to dissuade individuals from getting even with romantic
partners should they deem such a course inappropriate. The study presented in this thesis seeks to
fill part of that research need by examining two constructs, costliness and effectiveness, that
could potentially account for decisions to take revenge. It extends previous research detailing the
consequences of revenge (Boon, et al., 2011), examining if and how those consequences are
incorporated into revenge decision making.
Deciding to Take Revenge
It is certainly possible that individuals pay attention to the potential consequences of their
actions when deciding whether to take revenge. Social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibaut,
1978) is one perspective that suggests this should be the case. Proving influential through three
decades of relationship research (Murray & Holmes, 2011), social exchange theory posits that
relationships follow basic economic rules. From this perspective, romantic partners are
constantly weighing the costs and benefits associated with being in a relationship, as well as
those associated with any actions being considered. Actions that incur costs, whether financial,
emotional, or physical, are avoided unless there are potential benefits that outweigh those costs.
5
In order to understand the decision to take revenge as a decision based on consideration
of costs and benefits, it is necessary to understand how decisions are made in general. The
majority of theories regarding decision making are represented in their core by the expected
utility hypothesis, which postulates that individuals make decisions based on two main
considerations: the consequences inherent in a particular action, and the probability that the
consequences will occur (Arrow, 1966). These considerations are subjective, in that how each
consequence is perceived is what matters, not its objective reality (Simon, 1990).
If the above is true, the perceived consequences of revenge should influence the decision
to engage in it. To some, however, considerations of the consequences do not have any influence
over one’s actions, as indicated explicity by Horney (1948), in her discussion of vindictive
desires:
“There is no more holding back a person driven toward revenge than an alcoholic
determined to go on a binge. Any reasoning meets with cold disdain. Logic no longer
prevails. Whether or not the situation is appropriate does not matter. It overrides
prudence. Consequences for himself and others are brushed aside. He is as inaccessible as
anybody who is in the grip of a blind passion” (p. 5)
Yet the consequences of revenge are, from the recollection of avengers, an integral part
of the motivation and justification for getting even (Boon et al., 2009). So how, then, is the
decision to take revenge to be understood? If that decision is one that incorporates principles of
social exchange and expected utility, then an individual’s perceptions of the consequences
associated with revenge, both positive and negative, would be considered, weighted by the
perceived probability that each would come about. How these consequences are perceived would
6
then have some sway over how an individual ultimately responds to wrongdoing from a romantic
partner.
The Effectiveness and Costliness of Revenge
However, it may be an oversimplification to frame the decision to take revenge as a
straightforward accounting of all possible positive and negative consequences. For example, it is
possible that not all consequences are created equal. Victims of interpersonal harm, or even those
who decide to take revenge, have different motives and seek different outcomes (Yoshimura,
2007). One person may want power over a partner. Another might want to restore the
relationship. A third person may want to protect themselves or deter future harm. If a person is
deciding how to respond when harmed by a romantic partner, it may be important to consider
how the positive consequences associated with a particular response correspond to a person’s
goals. For example, if one’s goal following an act of harm is to restore the relationship with a
romantic partner, one would likely engage in actions that appear to restore the relationship, such
as talking through the problem with one’s partner, as opposed to taking revenge, which may be
perceived as harmful to the relationship (Boon et al., 2011).
It is to capture this idea that I make use of the construct of perceived effectiveness.
Revenge has been perceived by participants as being an ineffective strategy that is incapable or
unlikely to produce the results they desire (Boon et al., 2009). The effectiveness of revenge, then,
appears to be a concept that avengers think about when perceiving the characteristics of revenge
and its outcomes. In the absence of specific literature defining effectiveness, I use the MerriamWebster dictionary definition, which states that effectiveness is the capability of “producing a
decided, decisive, or desired effect” (Effectiveness, n.d.). I focus in this study on the aspect of
that definition regarding desired effects. Strategies that have fewer positive consequences, have
7
positive consequences that are less likely to occur, or have positive consequences that do not
match a desired outcome (i.e. restoring a relationship when the goal is to disengage oneself from
a relationship or cause harm to a partner) may be perceived as less effective. As effectiveness has
strong positive connotations, this term would exclude any negative consequences or negative
effects inherent with a particular strategy. An equivalent term for negative consequences would
be costliness, and might be defined as the capability of producing an undesired result (this
definition is given as a corollary to the definition of effectiveness. The word costly, as defined
by Merriam-Webster (Costly, n.d.), pertains to something being “made or done at heavy expense
or sacrifice”). If the decision to take revenge is the cost/benefit analysis social exchange theory
would expect it to be, I would predict that the perceived costliness, along with the perceived
effectiveness, of revenge would predict decision making for revenge.
Effectiveness and costliness have been used previously in the aggression literature
(Bjorkvist et al., 1994), where it is theorized that individuals take into account the effect an
aggressive act has, along with the potentially dangerous consequences inherent in it, when
deciding to engage in aggression. Bjorkvist and his colleagues combine these two ideas into an
effect/danger ratio. However, the definitions of effectiveness and costliness (the former
associated with desired results, and the latter associated with undesired results) suggest that these
constructs should be distinct in that they focus on distinct outcomes or results. Whether these
constructs are truly orthogonal is an empirical question, but in either case, considering the
constructs of effectiveness and costliness separately for the purposes of this study would allow
me to assess their unique importance and contribution independent of each other. It would also
allow me to assess if and how these constructs interact to explain decisions to take revenge, as
opposed to responding in other ways.
8
Alternatives to Revenge
What sorts of options would be competing with revenge? This is a difficult question to
answer without first understanding what people seek to accomplish by getting even. Although
revenge is often treated as an end in itself (Lochman et al., 1993; Richard & Schneider, 2005;
Lemerise et al., 2006), some scholars have contended that revenge, like other interpersonal
activity, is goal-directed (Berger, 2002; Yoshimura, 2007), and that the goals associated with
revenge are many and varied. While some have pointed to power, humiliation and exploitation as
the chief goals of revenge (Horney, 1948), others have left room for more constructive goals,
such as the search for justice and equity (Walster et al., 1978), as well as teaching a moral lesson
to the target of revenge (McCullough et al., 2001), or communicating a message to them (Boon
et al., 2009; Fitness, 2000; Yoshimura, 2007). Protecting oneself from future harm or aggression
has been another oft-cited revenge goal (Pinker, 1997).
Considering this range of potential aims, it should not be surprising that there are many
other ways of accomplishing those same goals. Falbo and Peplau (1980) identified a number of
potential strategies that individuals use to exert power and influence in an interpersonal setting.
These strategies included direct communicative acts such as asking, reasoning, bargaining, and
persuading, along with other, more indirect acts such as hinting. More direct acts of
communication, which involve joint discussion and negotiation, have been identified as an
effective strategy for dealing with conflict in a romantic relationship (Fitzpatrick et al., 1982). It
seems reasonable that direct communication with a romantic partner could be a viable option for
achieving some of the same goals as revenge, especially when it comes to communicating
messages to a partner and obtaining just and equitable outcomes.
9
Among other potential relationship goals, one that is strongly represented in the literature
is self-protection. The desire to protect oneself from emotional pain has the potential to color
every aspect of our behavior (Murray & Holmes, 2011; Murray et al., 2011), and can be achieved
through such diverse means as defensiveness (Schwinghammer et al., 2006), rationalization
(Alicke & Sedikides, 2009), and emotional disengagement (Barnard, 1985). When reacting to
harm, discouraging future harm through retaliation could be a viable way to self-protect, but it
would be by no means the only way. It could also be accomplished by avoiding or ignoring the
partner or the situation, undertaken as a means of avoiding conflict or further harm, as would
likely be the advice of close friends and mental health professionals alike (Summerfield, 2002).
There is nothing to say that individuals could not employ multiple strategies, or switch to
a different strategy after others fail. However, in the face of the obvious complexity and nuance
inherent in all these potential strategies (i.e. strategies could potentially take a variety of different
forms, be fueled by different motivations, or serve multiple goals at the same time), I will, for the
sake of parsimony, limit discussion of alternative strategies to revenge to two generalized forms:
direct communication with the partner and avoiding or ignoring the partner.
Correlates and Moderators of Costliness, Effectiveness, and Revenge
If the effectiveness and costliness of revenge do predict revenge behavior, it would be
important to know what sorts of contextual and individual difference factors are associated with
those perceptions. I will here focus on two main potential correlates: goal endorsement and
vengeance. I will also discuss emotional involvement as a potential moderator for the effects of
perceived consequences.
Goal endorsement. Goal endorsement refers to having a particular goal in mind when
responding to harm. For example, if an individual’s goal following a provocation is to self-
10
protect, directly confronting a partner may not have corresponded well to that goal, as it may
expose the individual to further abuse. Disengaging may appear to better correspond with the
goal of self-protection, as it might better keep the individual out of direct contact with the
perpetrator. If an individual’s goal is to communicate a message, perhaps a message that the
individual had been hurt by a partner’s actions, direct confrontation may fit well, as it would
allow that person to directly communicate his or her feelings, while avoidance may not provide
that chance. Also, if the goal is to hurt, humiliate and show dominance over a partner, it is hard
to think of a strategy that fits better than revenge. Thus, the perceived effectiveness of a
particular strategy should be associated with endorsement with a certain goal or set of goals.
Yoshimura (2007) found preliminary evidence of the connection between goals and
chosen strategies in his study of goal-directed revenge behavior. Using a 24-item scale
measuring the endorsement of social conflict goals, he found that endorsing particular kinds of
goals was related to different kinds of revenge behavior. A high rating of power-hostility goals,
goals that involved hurting or dominating a partner, was related to more overt aggressive revenge
acts, suggesting that these more hostile acts were deemed more suitable to achieve a more hostile
goal. If this is true for different kinds of revenge acts, then it may also apply to a choice between
revenge and non-revenge alternatives.
Yoshimura examined several different kinds of goals in his study, and each type could
correspond to different strategies one might engage in following a provocation. Power-hostility
goals, as mentioned above, might be more suitably met by taking revenge, as evidenced by the
strong conceptual links between revenge and power (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006). Justice
related goals, such as making a partner feel like the avenger has felt, might also be more strongly
associated with revenge than with its alternatives, as justice and retribution are also core aspects
11
of revenge (Frijda, 1994). One might expect the same for identity related goals, such as restoring
self-esteem, pride, or reputation, as avengers occasionally cite these outcomes as positive
consequences of taking revenge (Boon et al., 2011). There are other goals, however, that may not
correspond well to getting even. Relationship-oriented goals, including wanting to repair the
relationship or resolve the issue, might be better met through direct communication than through
revenge (Beck, 1989). Also, if an individual desires protection from harm or negative affect,
avoidance may appear to be a more effective option than revenge, as people who take revenge
might expect their target to try to get even in return (Kim & Smith, 1993).
Vengeance. Also of interest in this study is the concept of vengeance itself as a
personality trait. Some individuals appear to generally be more vengeful than others, meaning
they are more likely to respond to a provocation in retaliatory ways (Stuckless & Goranson,
2002). Researchers have sought to measure this construct, and have applied it in previous studies
pertaining to revenge behavior (Stuckless & Goranson, 2002). While it would be natural to
expect individuals scoring high on vengeance to see revenge as more effective and less costly
than those who score low, vengeance also serves as an interesting potential confound in this
study. It may be that perceptions of effectiveness and costliness help predict the likelihood of
taking revenge, but could that relationship be illusory? Might they do so only because vengeful
people are more likely than less vengeful people to take revenge as well as perceive revenge’s
consequences differently? Controlling for vengeance as a personality trait will help rule out that
possibility.
Emotional involvement. Besides identifying correlates of perceived effectiveness and
perceived negative consequences, it is also important to look for potential moderators of their
relationship with revenge behavior. Although it is the aim of this thesis to carve out space for
12
revenge to be a rational decision, it is still likely that emotion will continue to play a role in
decisions to take revenge, both directly and through the modifying the effects of other variables.
Increased emotional involvement in a relationship has been shown to be related to increased
emotional distress and desires for revenge (Davis et al., 2003) following a stressful event. If
greater emotion means greater desires for revenge, measures of emotional involvement in the
scenario should predict revenge behavior as a main effect, but it may also moderate the
predictive effects of perceived effectiveness and costliness. Specifically, I would predict that
costliness and effectiveness will each be less predictive of the likelihood of taking revenge when
levels of emotional involvement are high than when they are low. This prediction would align
with the general observations of Horney (1948), that individuals driven by emotion seem less
likely to be dissuaded by the consequences of their actions when it comes to revenge.
Emotional involvement could simply be measured by having participants rate the levels
of their own emotions, but it may be especially useful to experimentally manipulate emotional
involvement. Other researchers have been able to manipulate levels of emotional involvement in
other contexts that may be comparable to decisions to take revenge. Toi and Batson (1982), for
example, successfully manipulated the amount of empathy, or emotional connection, that
participants had with an individual portrayed in a video as undergoing distress. Participants in
the low empathy condition were asked to write about what the person was doing moment to
moment, while individuals in the high empathy condition were asked to write about what the
person was feeling. In thinking and writing about those emotions, individuals in the latter group
ostensibly felt many of the same emotions that they were imagining, and thus felt an increased
sense of empathy for them. Although there are differences between instilling an emotional
connection to another person and instilling emotional involvement to a hypothetical provocation
13
scenario, I believed a similar manipulation could be used to make individuals more emotionally
involved after imagining an act of infidelity. Individuals in a low emotional involvement
condition could be asked to write about what they would do, hour by hour, the next day.
Individuals in a high emotional involvement condition could be asked to write about what they
would feel the next day in response to the provocation. If participants react in a similar way to
Toi and Batson’s manipulation, those in the latter group should feel more emotionally involved
in the situation than those in the former group.
Considering the breadth of human emotional responses, it is necessary to specify the kind
of emotion I would be looking for in regards to revenge. While there are likely many emotions
that come into play when harmed by a romantic partner (sadness, disappointment, frustration,
etc.), the emotion of particular import to revenge is anger (Cloke, 1993). Anger is defined as a
negative feeling state associated with perceptual distortions, such as a perceived injustice, and
attached to tendencies to engage in behavioral scripts, such as aggression or hostility (Kassinove
& Sukhodolsky, 1995), and has been associated with desires for revenge (Barber, maltby, &
Macaskill, 2005). If there is one emotion that I hope my manipulation would instill, it would be
anger, and if that manipulation fails to instill greater emotional involvement, measuring anger
more directly may be an acceptable substitute. Anger would be presumed to moderate
effectiveness and costliness in the same ways that emotional involvement generally would
moderate those variables.
The Present Study
The goal of the present study was to examine the predictive effects of perceived
effectiveness and costliness on the decision to take revenge. I did so through presenting
undergraduate participants with a hypothetical provocation from a romantic partner describing an
14
instance of infidelity that occurred in a long-term relationship. Participants rated the likelihood of
taking revenge, communicating with the partner directly, and avoiding or ignoring the partner.
These ratings served as dependent variables in the ensuing analysis.
Also, in an attempt to validate the construct of effectiveness as a representation of
positive consequences, participants were asked to create a list of the positive and negative
consequences that might result from the use of each strategy, and rate the severity of each
consequence as well as the likelihood of each consequence occurring. As the expected utility
hypothesis emphasizes the importance of perceived probability in decision making (Arrow,
1966; Simon, 1990), these ratings were combined into indices of positive and negative
consequences. These indices were meant to incorporate such probabilistic perceptions, as well as
the number and rated severity of each consequence, providing a measure that captures the degree
to which participants believed a strategy would lead to positive or negative consequences.
Based on the literature, I generated the following hypotheses:
H1: Participants’ perception of the effectiveness of revenge should be significantly
correlated with the positive consequences of revenge, but should not be correlated with
negative consequences. The perceived costliness of revenge should be correlated with
weighted negative consequences, but not positive ones.
H2: Evidence of goal-strategy correspondence will be found through significant
correlations between ratings of the endorsement of different goals and perceived
effectiveness of the three alternatives: (a) the perceived effectiveness of revenge will be
positively related to power, justice, and identity related goals, (b) the perceived
effectiveness of direct communication will be positively related to relationship goals, and
(c) avoidance will be positively related to self-protect goals. I do not expect any other
15
significant correlations between ratings of goal endorsement and the perceived
effectiveness of each strategy.
H3: Emotional involvement, as well as perceptions of effectiveness and costliness of
revenge, will significantly predict the rated likelihood of engaging in revenge. Being
more emotionally involved will relate to ratings of being more likely to take revenge. If
participants perceive revenge to be more effective, they will rate themselves as more
likely to engage in it, and if participants perceive revenge to be more costly, they will rate
themselves as less likely to engage in it.
H4: Perceptions of the effectiveness and costliness of revenge will significantly interact
when predicting the likelihood of taking revenge. Specifically, each perception will better
predict revenge likelihood when the other is at lower levels. For example, if costs are
perceived to be high, effectiveness perceptions may not sway the likelihood of taking
revenge as much as they would if the costs were perceived to be low.
H5: The effects of perceived effectiveness and costliness will each be moderated by
emotional involvement, with each better predicting the likelihood of taking revenge when
emotional involvement is low.
The present study represents a natural extension of previous research regarding the
consequences associated with revenge (Aquino et al., 2006; Yoshimura, 2007; Boon et al.,
2011). With previous studies we have gained insight into some of the positive and negative
consequences that are associated with revenge acts. The next step is to see if perceptions of those
consequences predict revenge behavior, in this case beginning with a highly controlled,
hypothetical revenge scenario. Beginning this way, in an ethically conservative fashion, allows a
16
safe starting point from which future research can take greater risks and reap more externally
valid rewards.
17
Chapter 2: Methodology
Participants and Procedure
One-hundred and ninety-nine individuals (76 males, 121 females) at a large university in
Western Canada completed an online survey under supervised laboratory conditions in exchange
for partial course credit (M Age = 20.87, SD Age = 3.52). Participants completed the survey in groups
of up to 20. The questionnaire consisted of the vignette and measures described below. Although
recruitment requirements stated that participants needed to be in a romantic relationship, seven
percent indicated that they were not currently in a relationship. Of those currently in
relationships, 3% (one male, four females) reported being in a relationship with a partner of the
same gender. Removing individuals in not in relationships or in homosexual relationships did not
substantially alter the results, and, as such, the results of the full sample are reported. The
majority of the sample identified themselves as White/European Canadian (56%), with
remaining identifying as Chinese (14%), South Asian (14%), and a number of other ethnic
groups (16%). Also, as no gender differences were hypothesized, and the only observed gender
difference was a small difference in the perceived effectiveness of getting even, F(1,187) = 5.00,
p = .03, (M MALES = 2.03, SD = 1.24, M FEMALES = 1.78, SD = 1.05), further tests of gender differences
and effects of gender will not be reported.
Materials
Demographics. All materials included in the survey are listed in Appendix A.
Demographic questions included age, ethnicity, gender, and relationship status.
Social desirability. With the intention of using it as a covariate in regression analyses, I
measured social desirability using the 40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(BIDR) using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very true) to 7 (very true). This measure has
18
been shown to have moderate internal consistency reliability, .83, and moderate concurrent
validity with other social desirability scales, r = .71 for the M-C SDS, r = .80 for the
Multidimensional Social Desirability Inventory (Paulhus, 1988). Sample items include: “It would
be hard for me to break any bad habits”, and “I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit”. I
observed the scale to be moderately reliable (α = .80).
Vengeance. Trait attitudes toward revenge were measured with the Vengeance Scale
(Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). The scale includes 28 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include: “Forgiving is a sign of
weakness”, and “Holding a grudge does not help anyone” (reverse scored). I observed the scale
to be highly reliable (α = .93).
Vignette. The scenario was an original vignette created for this study. As there are a
large variety of potential provocations for romantic revenge (Metts & Cupach, 2007), I felt that it
was important to reduce variability by limiting the scenario for this study to one specific
provocation. As infidelity is an oft-reported and easily relatable provocation (Hall & Fincham,
2006; Boon et al., 2009), I chose to use it as the provocation in the hypothetical scenario. The
vignette read:
You have always loved your partner. That has never been a question throughout the three
years that you have been together. Yet finding out that you have been cheated on is
painful. The knowledge of it, that your partner has been seeing someone else off and on
for the last six months, has hurt worse than you could have expected. There is only one
question now: what is there to do?
Clarity, simplicity and brevity were major goals in my design of the scenario, so it
includes as few details as possible about the victim of the provocation, the potential target of
19
revenge, or their relationship, with the following exceptions: the victim and the target are still
together, the victim still has substantial romantic feelings for the target, their relationship had
been a long term one (lasting three years), and the provocation caused the victim significant
emotional pain. These four things imply that the victim has a large degree of emotional
involvement in the relationship as well as the outcome of his or her actions, and is experiencing
enough hurt that retaliating could be viewed as a reasonable way to respond.
Goal endorsement. I measured participant endorsement of goals and desired outcomes
(i.e., what participants would want to have happen following the provocation) using a 20-item
scale adapted from Ohbuchi and Tedeschi’s social conflict goal scale (1997). The original
measure had six subscales: relationship goals, power-hostility goals, justice goals, identity goals,
personal resource goals and economic resource goals. I did not use the latter two subscales
relating to resource goals, as they did not appear pertinent to my analysis. The justice-related
items in Obbuchi and Tedeschi’s measure assessed concepts that I believed were secondary to
concepts of justice, such as receiving an apology or being treated politely, and I replaced those
items with four that I believed assessed justice more directly (e.g., “I would want justice for what
happened”; Frijda, 1994). I also included three additional items to capture the goal of selfprotection, a goal that plays an important role in social exchange and interdependence theories
(Murray & Holmes, 2011).
The resulting measure included five subscales assessing different goals participants might
have for taking revenge against their hypothetical partner: relationship goals (7 items, e.g., “I
would want to come to terms with the other person”), power goals (4 items, e.g., “I would want
to punish the other person for their negative actions”), justice goals (4 items, e.g., “I would want
justice for what happened”), identity goals (2 items, e.g., “I would want to restore my honor,
20
social face, or reputation”) and self-protection goals (3 items, e.g.,“I would want to protect
myself from future harm”). Participants rated their endorsement of goals on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not at all strongly) to 7 (very strongly).
I used a principal component analysis (PCA) with an oblique rotation to assess the
structure of the modified scale. The analysis converged on a five-factor solution, but the scree
plot (see Figure 1) suggested a three factor solution. Analyzing the scale with three factors
yielded a solution accounting for 54% of the variance. As the resulting pattern matrix (see Table
1) did not corresponded to the expected structure of the measure, I made revisions to the scale
according to several specific criteria. First, I chose a stringent cut-off of .40 to consider an item
as loading substantially on a particular factor, and items that loaded together were combined into
a single subscale. I removed items that exhibited marginally unacceptable communalities (< .40;
Kline, 2005) or that cross-loaded. The identity and self-protect goals subscales I removed
entirely, as they had only one item remaining following the above revisions.
The final result was a 13-item scale with two subscales. These subscales were
Relationship Goals (6 items; α = .87) and Power/Justice Goals (7 items; α = .90).
Effectiveness and costliness. As costliness has substantial connotations of financial or
material loss, and many of the negative consequences of revenge would be intangible or
emotional, measures of perceived costliness were operationalized as the perceived severity of
negative consequences. To assess perceived effectiveness and costliness for each of the three
strateges, two question stems were created: ‘How effective do you feel [a strategy] would be?’
and ‘How severe do you feel the negative consequences of [a strategy] would be?’ Participants
rated the six items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
21
To assess the consequences, both positive and negative, individuals perceived as
following their hypothetical response, six open-ended items were used. Each item asked
participants to list all the positive or negative consequences they could for each of the three
strategies. Once they listed these consequences, participants rated the severity of each
consequence on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all positive/negative) to 5
(extremely positive/negative), and then listed the percentage chance out of 100 that represented
what they believed was the probability of that consequence occurring.
Emotional involvement manipulation. In order to experimentally test the effect of
emotional involvement in the hypothetical scenario, participants were randomly assigned to one
of two conditions. In the first, participants viewed the following statement:
Say that when this happens, the next day is a normal weekday. Please take the next five
minutes to write about how you would feel the next day if you found out you had been
cheated on by a romantic partner. What sort of emotions would you have? How would
you feel towards that partner? This screen will automatically move on to the next page
after five minutes are up. Write as much as you can in that time period.
The second condition was meant to focus participants away from their emotions. These
participants viewed the similar statement asking them to take five minutes to write about what
they would do, hour by hour, following the provocation. This manipulation was based off of Toi
& Batson’s (1982) empathy manipulation, wherein individuals instructed to think about how a
subject felt exhibited greater empathy than those instructed to think about what a subject was
doing.
Likelihood of engaging. Individuals rated how likely they would be to engage in each
strategy using three items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7
22
(extremely). Each participant was also asked how they would initially respond after he or she
found out about the infidelity. They indicated their response through a single item with four
possible choices: (a) I would try to talk to my partner about it, (b) I would try to get even with
my partner somehow, (c) I would try to avoid or ignore my partner, or (d) I would do something
else. Following their choice, they were asked to write about how they would go about
implementing their chosen strategy.
Manipulation check. A manipulation check of emotional involvement was included at the end
of the survey. That manipulation check consisted of three items on a five point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (an extreme amount): ‘How much emotion did you feel while
answering these questions?’, ‘How similar would those emotions be to those you would feel if
you were cheated on in real life?’, and ‘How much anger did you feel toward your hypothetical
romantic partner?’
A measure of positive and negative affect, adapted from the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was also included as a manipulation
check. It consisted of a list of 15 different emotions, eight positive (proud, satisfied, fulfilled,
content, rewarded, happy, justified, calm) and seven negative (regretful, guilty, angry, frustrated,
disturbed, ashamed, distressed). Individuals rated how much they feel each particular emotion on
a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Following these questions,
individuals were debriefed through the online survey and thanked for their time. I observed
strong reliability for measures of both positive and negative emotions (negative emotions, α =
.86; positive emotions, α = .91).
23
Chapter 3: Results
The aim of the following analyses was to examine the role that perceived positive and
negative consequences play in revenge decision making. I begin by discussing open-ended
responses that provide context into what revenge and its consequences might entail. I then
examine how the perceived effectiveness and costliness of a particular strategy relates to those
positive and negative consequences, as well as how perceived effectiveness relates to the goals
or outcomes one might desire when provoked. I then use perceived effectiveness and costliness,
alongside a measure of emotional involvement, to predict participants’ rated likelihood of getting
even. Descriptive statistics for all the variables to be used in the following analyses, as well as
the hypotheses they correspond to, are shown in Table 2.
Revenge and Its Consequences
Each participant was asked to list what they thought the consequences of revenge would
be, both positive and negative. They were also asked to rate each consequences in terms of its
severity (i.e., how positive or how negative would this consequence be?) and probability (i.e.,
what is the percentage chance out of 100 that this consequence would occur?) The result was a
list of 1,059 consequences (648 negative, M = 3.22 per participant, SD = 1.34; 411 positive, M =
1.97, SD = 1.30) that I coded thematically according to categories generated through previous
research (Boon et al., 2011; see Appendix C for the coding manual). The frequency of each
consequence category, along with the mean rated probability of each type of consequence and its
mean rated severity are shown in Table 3.
In terms of positive consequences, revenge was most frequently perceived to cause some
sort of desired change in a partner, including instilling empathy and correcting a partner’s
behavior. Redressing the partner’s feelings or providing closure was also a frequently listed
24
positive consequence, as was obtaining a sense of justice. On the other hand, revenge was also
frequently perceived to cause feelings of guilt, shame and regret in the avenger, and was
perceived to place the avenger at risk of retaliation from the target.
When asked what their initial response would be following the provocation, very few
participants (n = 8) indicated that they would begin by getting even with their partners in some
way. Those that did choose revenge, however, gave some detail as to how they would go about
getting even. These details included responding to infidelity by engaging in infidelity in return
(i.e. “I would get with another guy to try to ease the pain.” “Since they cheated on me, it would
make sense to do the same, with somebody that they cared about.” “I would probably try to show
them that I could be happy with someone else very quickly.”), as well as simply showing their
anger and engaging in an argument with their partner (i.e. “[I would swear] at him and tell him
how big of a jerk he had been.” “I would try to hurt them emotionally like they hurt me, probably
by fighting with them and saying hurtful things.”). Considering the limited sample that provided
details on how they would take revenge, it is extremely likely that there are other ways one could
choose to take revenge following infidelity.
Hypothesis 1: Validating Effectiveness and Costliness
Hypothesis 1 predicted that effectiveness would be positively correlated to positive
consequences and costliness would be positively correlated with negative consequences. I
created six variables from the lists of the positive and negative consequences that participants
generated for each of the three strategies. I have termed these variables positive consequence
indices (PCI) and negative consequence indices (NCI) for each strategy. In these lists,
participants identified as many positive or negative consequences as they could for each strategy
and gave each consequence two ratings: one for its severity and one for its probability of
25
occurring. I multiplied those ratings together (e.g., severity rating of 4 multiplied by an 80%
probability of occurring, 4 x .80 = 3.2) and then summed the resulting values across all positive
or negative consequences for each participant. The result is a set of variables that represent the
degree that an individual perceives each strategy to have positive or negative consequences, an
idea that incorporates the severity and probability of each consequence as well as the sheer
number of consequences. For example, a participant may have listed many negative
consequences, but if that participant felt that such consequences were not likely to occur or were
not very severe, that individual’s negative consequence index could potentially be lower than
that of someone who rated fewer consequences, but perceived them to be more likely and more
negative.
I correlated these indices with ratings of how costly and how effective each strategy was.
Table 4 reports these zero-order correlations. I predicted that effectiveness ratings would be
largely related to positive consequences, but not to negative ones. The results provide partial
support for my hypothesis. For revenge, ratings of its effectiveness were significantly and
positively correlated with its PCI, and weakly and negatively correlated with its NCI. This
negative relationship contradicts my hypothesis, although the results indicate that perceived
effectiveness is more strongly related to positive consequences than to negative ones (Fisher Z =
2.83, p = .004). On the other hand, consistent with my prediction, ratings of revenge’s costliness
were significantly and positively correlated with revenge’s NCI, but not at all related to its PCI.
In terms of perceived effectiveness, I observed similar patterns for the alternative
strategies of direct communication and avoidance. In each case, the strategy’s perceived
effectiveness was positively correlated with its PCI and negatively correlated with its NCI, with
the latter relationship somewhat weaker than the former (direct communication Fisher Z = 1.9, p
26
= .06; avoidance Fisher Z = 2.02, p = .04. This suggests that the construct of effectiveness
functions similarly across the three strategies, with perceived effectiveness largely associated
with positive consequences but also related to negative consequences, albeit to a lesser degree.
Hypothesis 2: Goal Correspondence
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the perceived effectiveness of certain strategies would
correlate with the levels of endorsement of certain types of goals—that wanting particular kinds
of outcomes would be related to the perception that certain strategies were more effective. Table
5 shows the zero-order correlations between the subscales of my modified goal measure and the
perceived effectiveness of each strategy. The results largely support hypothesis 2a, as the
effectiveness of revenge was strongly and positively correlated with the endorsement of power
and justice goals. There was also a weak but significant negative relationship between the
perceived effectiveness of revenge and the endorsement of relationship goals. The endorsement
of relationship goals was strongly and positively correlated to perceiving direct communication
as more effective, supporting hypothesis 2b. The endorsement of relationship goals was also
negatively related to the perceived effectiveness of avoidance, and the perceived effectiveness of
direct communication was weakly and negatively correlated with the endorsement of power and
justice goals. The perceived effectiveness of avoidance, on the other hand, was positively related
to the endorsement of power and justice goals, although this association was also weak.
Hypothesis 2c, along with the part of hypothesis 2a related to identity goals, could not be
assessed, as the subscales related to identity and self-protection did not survive my revision of
the goal scale.
These results suggest that desired outcomes correspond to particular strategies. If an
individual desires relationship goals, direct communication will likely be perceived as a more
27
effective strategy, while revenge and avoidance may seem less effective. If an individual desires
goals related to power and justice, getting even may be perceived as more effective, as might
avoidance to a lesser degree, while direct communication may be perceived as a less effective
strategy.
Emotional Involvement Manipulation.
In the questionnaire, I attempted to manipulate emotional involvement by randomly
assigning participants to either write about how they would feel following the provocation (high
emotional involvement), or write objectively about what they would do (low emotional
involvement). From all indications, this manipulation was not successful. The two groups did not
differ in the amount of emotion they felt, F(1,193) = 2.01, p = .16 (M HIGH = 3.29, SD = 1.11; M LOW
= 3.07, SD = 1.06), the amount of anger they felt toward their partner, F(1,192) = 1.16, p = .28
(M HIGH = 3.17, SD = 1.12; M LOW = 3.35, SD = 1.26), nor in the amount of reported positive,
F(1,190) = .93, p = .36 (M HIGH = 2.16, SD = .94; M LOW = 2.30, SD = .96), or negative emotions,
F(1,191) = 2.12, p = .14 (M HIGH = 1.93, SD = .84; M LOW = 1.76, SD = .73), as measured by the
PANAS. In short, those who wrote about their own emotions did not appear to be more
emotionally involved then those who wrote about their actions.
In my search for a variable that could serve as a proxy measure of emotional
involvement, I examined the correlations between the likelihood of taking revenge and other
measures of emotion included in the questionnaire, including the single item manipulation check
measure of emotional involvement (r = .14, p > .05) and the single item measure of how angry
they felt toward their partner (r = .28, p < .001). Of these, the anger item included in the PANAS
exhibited the strongest correlation (r = .32, p < .001). I thus used this measure of anger in place
of emotional involvement in the ensuing regression analyses. This measure of anger also did not
28
significantly differ by emotional involvement group, F(1,194) = 2.52, p = .11 (M HIGH = 2.23, SD =
.1.25; M LOW = 1.96, SD = 1.11)
Hypotheses 3, 4, & 5: Predicting the Likelihood of Taking Revenge
I hypothesized that three constructs--effectiveness, costliness and emotional involvement-could be used to predict ratings of how likely individuals would be to engage in revenge. I also
hypothesized that these three constructs would interact in various ways. Table 6 reports zeroorder correlations between all variables used in the analysis. All variables were centered,
standardized, and assessed for normality prior to analysis. No outliers were observed, but every
variable used was substantially skewed in either a positive or negative direction. Inverse
transformations were attempted but were not successful in creating normal distributions and did
not affect the results. As such, the results for non-transformed variables are reported. I suggest
caution in interpreting these results, as the data do not conform to the assumptions of regression.
I conducted a hierarchical multiple regression that proceeded in four steps. In the first
step, I included scores on the BIDR and Vengeance scales as control variables. These variables
accounted for a significant amount of variance, (33%), F(2,192) = 47.49, p < .001. In the second
step, I added the perceived effectiveness of revenge, revenge’s perceived costliness, and ratings
of anger (in place of emotional involvement) as main effects. Doing so accounted for a large and
significant amount of variance incremental to the control variables (56.2%, R2 Change = .23),
FChange(3,189) = 33.29, p < .001. In the third step, I added the three two-way interaction terms,
which were created by multiplying the centered main effect variables together in pairs. These
two-way interactions did not add significant incremental variance (58%, R2 Change = .01),
FChange(3,186) = 1.95, p = .12. Lastly, the three-way interaction term was added in the fourth
29
step, which significantly increased the variance accounted for (59%, R2 Change = .01),
FChange(1,185) = 5.20, p = .02.
Table 7 reports the unstandardized b-weights, t values, and squared semi-partial
correlations for each variable on the step they were entered into the regression. These results
provide partial support for hypothesis 3, which predicted significant main effects for perceived
effectiveness, perceived costliness, and emotional involvement. Anger and perceptions of
revenge’s effectiveness significantly predicted the likelihood of taking revenge, but the main
effect of costliness was not significant. Effectiveness in particular accounted for a substantial
amount of unique variance. Although the predicted two-way interactions between effectiveness
and anger, costliness and anger, and effectiveness and costliness did not reach significance, the
significant three-way interaction suggests that these three predictors interact as shown in Figure
2.
I conducted simple slopes tests on the unstandardized coefficients observed in the threeway interaction, using conditional standardized values of 1 and -1 to represent high (one SD
above the mean) and low (one SD below the mean) values for each variable. Of the four slopes
seen in Figure 2, which shows the effect of perceived costliness on the rated likelihood of getting
even, moderated by the effects of perceived effectiveness and ratings of anger, the only
significant slope is the line representing low perceived effectiveness and high ratings of anger, b
= -.43, t = -2.40, p = .02. This three-way interaction provides partial support for hypothesis 4,
which predicted that perceived effectiveness and perceived costliness would each be more
predictive when the other was at low levels. Although the predictive effect of the perceived
effectiveness of revenge did not seem to be moderated by perceptions of costliness, revenge’s
30
perceived costliness was more indeed predictive when its effectiveness was perceived to be low,
but only among participants who were high in anger.
Hypothesis 5, however, which predicted two separate two-way interactions, that
perceived effectiveness and perceived costliness would each be moderated by emotional
involvement (i.e. anger, in this case) in their prediction of the rated likelihood of taking revenge,
with each being more predictive when anger was low, was not supported by the observed threeway interaction. The predictive effect of perceived effectiveness on the rated likelihood of
getting even was consistent, again, regardless of how angry participants rated themselves to be,
an observation which did not support hypothesis 5. Perceptions of costliness, on the other hand,
were more predictive when ratings of anger were high as opposed to low, which directly
contradicted hypothesis 5. This suggests that anger may enhance, rather than dampen,
consideration of the costs of revenge.
Although presenting the results in terms of the effects of costliness, moderated by
effectiveness and anger, allowed me to assess hypotheses 4 and 5 more directly, reframing the
interaction in terms of the effects of anger, in turn moderated by perceived costliness and
effectiveness, may help us better understand what the interaction represents. Framing the
interaction in this way, as shown in Figure 3, examines the question: when do levels of anger
make a difference in the rated likelihood of taking revenge? Again, simple slopes tests were
conducted, and the only slope reaching significance was the effect of anger when perceptions of
both effectiveness and costliness were low, b = .78, t = 4.06, p < .001. Anger does not appear to
influence the likelihood of taking revenge if revenge is perceived to be highly effective. Even
when effectiveness is perceived to be low, anger does not seem to influence that likelihood when
costs are perceived to be high. Being angrier is only associated with a greater likelihood of
31
taking revenge when revenge is perceived to be ineffective and when costliness is perceived to
be low. This would suggest that anger only predicts the likelihood of taking revenge under
certain conditions—conditions defined by how the consequences of revenge are perceived.
32
Chapter 4: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to see if perceptions of the consequences of revenge—
revenge’s effectiveness and costliness, in particular—could predict the rated likelihood of
engaging in revenge following a hypothetical provocation from a romantic partner. In doing so, I
also sought to assess the validity of the construct of perceived effectiveness as a representation of
desired positive consequences as well as examine whether desired goals or outcomes were
related to the perceived effectiveness of certain strategies, strategies that could be undertaken in
response to a provocation. These analyses were meant to provide a preliminary examination of
how the perceived consequences of revenge could be incorporated by individuals into their
decisions to get even. In the sections below I will discuss each of my hypotheses in turn as well
as what the results imply for our understanding of revenge decision-making.
The Construct of Perceived Effectiveness
I theorized that perceived effectiveness, as a construct, is related to the magnitude of
positive consequences associated with a given strategy and that costliness, on the other hand, is
related to the magnitude of associated negative consequences. Based on these ideas, I predicted
that the perceived effectiveness of revenge would be significantly and positively associated with
a measure of revenge’s positive consequences but not associated with a measure of revenge’s
negative consequences. I also predicted that the reverse would be true for revenge’s perceived
costliness—that it would be significantly and positively related to a measure of negative
consequences and not to positive consequences. These measures were indices created from
participants’ list of consequences, combining ratings of each consequence’s probability and
severity, and then summing those for all consequences listed by each participant.
33
My predictions regarding the perceived costliness of revenge were largely supported, as
revenge’s perceived costliness was positively related to the negative consequence index for
revenge, but not related to revenge’s positive consequence index. The results were more complex
for perceived effectiveness, however. As expected, perceived effectiveness was positively related
to revenge’s positive consequence index. However, it was also negatively related to revenge’s
negative consequence index, contrary to my hypotheses. This latter relationship was substantially
and significantly weaker than the former, as evidenced by the reported Fisher’s Z’s. The
observed pattern of relationships, with perceived effectiveness strongly and positively related to
positive consequences while being weakly and negatively related to negative consequences, was
not only true for revenge, but remained consistent across analyses of direct communication and
avoidance as well.
These results support my theorizing in that perceived effectiveness appears to be largely
related to positive consequences, yet the unexpected negative correlation between perceived
effectiveness and my indices of negative consequences does need to be addressed. It would be
reasonable to assume from the results that increased negative consequences would make revenge
seem somewhat less effective. If revenge is making an individual feel guilty or is causing
unintended harm, then perhaps that individual might feel as if revenge isn’t providing them with
what they want. However, an examination of the consequences listed by participants provides an
alternative explanation. Among the negative consequences of revenge was the idea that revenge
was ineffective, or unable to fix or solve the situation. In other words, this ineffectiveness was
listed as a cost. The inverse was not the case—the lack of costs was not listed as a positive
consequence. What this suggests is that lower levels of perceived effectiveness may lead
34
individuals to list increased numbers of negative consequences, or rate those consequences as
more probable or more severe, rather than the other way around.
One caveat to this possibility is that the types of lists of consequences produced here and
in other research (particularly Boon et al., 2011), are prone to errors in judgement regarding nonevents or in recalling past events (Gilovich, 1997). There may be systematic biases in judgement
that might lead individuals to list a lack of effectiveness as a cost but not list the lack of costs as
a positive consequence, such as a potential attentional bias where failing to obtain desired
outcomes might be associated with sadness and disappointment, emotions which might call
ineffectiveness to mind more readily. A lack of costs, on the other hand, might represent a
default state that is not associated with a particular set of emotions and is relatively
unremarkable.
Such speculation aside, the direction of causality is potentially important in this case. If
the unexpected negative relationship between perceived effectiveness and my measure of
negative consequences can be attributed to the effects of perceived effectiveness on the negative
consequences listed by participants, then this would allow the construct of perceived
effectiveness to remain untainted by negative consequences (although regardless, the correlation
between the two remains very weak (r = -.19).
This conceptual purity would allow for a greater degree of theoretical and methodological
simplicity, with our understanding of perceived effectiveness and its influence on revenge
limited to a consideration of the positive consequences of getting even, rather than having to also
take negative consequences into account. My definition of perceived effectiveness as the degree
to which a strategy is perceived to provide desired outcomes could remain unaltered. If, on the
other hand, increased negative consequences lead to revenge being perceived as less effective,
35
the concept of perceived effectiveness would need to be fundamentally modified. Deciding
which is the case would likely require more direct experimental examination (i.e., randomly
assigning participants to view a costly vs. non-costly scenario and assessing that manipulations
effect on perceived effectiveness).
As my results suggest that perceived effectiveness is an important construct for predicting
revenge, knowing what such perceptions are composed of helps us understand what the observed
relationship between perceived effectiveness and the rated likelihood of taking revenge actually
means. Perceptions of effectiveness may predict revenge so well (accounting for 16% of unique
variance above and beyond other variables) because they encompass feelings about both positive
and negative consequences, and thus provide a more holistic indication of attitudes toward
revenge. If, however, effectiveness perceptions only encompass positive consequences, then the
amount of variance those perceptions account for may be strong evidence for the influence of
potential positive consequences on vengeful decision making. These ideas are important to keep
in mind when considering the rest of my results.
Goal Correspondence and Perceived Effectiveness
Even though I examined the relationship between perceived effectiveness and a general
measure of positive consequences, I also suggested that only desired outcomes—outcomes that
correspond to one’s goals following a provocation—would ultimately contribute to perceived
effectiveness. In other words, believing that revenge would provide positive consequences is not
necessarily enough to for it to be perceived as an effective strategy; revenge would specifically
have to give individuals what they want. In an initial examination of this idea, I predicted that the
perceived effectiveness of particular strategies would be related to the endorsement of particular
36
goals—what individuals wanted to happen after they discovered the infidelity would correlate
with how effective they felt each strategy was.
In particular, I predicted that wanting to fulfill power, justice and identity related goals
would be positively related to perceiving revenge to be effective, that wanting to repair or
maintain the relationship would be positively related to perceiving that direct communication
would be effective, and that wanting to protect oneself from harm would be positively related to
perceiving avoidance to be effective.
Again, my predictions were largely supported. The endorsement of power and justice
goals was positively associated with perceiving revenge to be effective. The endorsement of
relationship goals was positively associated with perceiving direct communication to be
effective. On the other hand, the self-protection and identity subscales of my measure did not
survive my modifications to the goal scale, and I was thus unable to reliably assess whether these
goals would be related to the perceived effectiveness of avoidance or revenge respectively.
Despite this limitation, it appears that the goals individuals endorse are indeed related to how
effective particular strategies are perceived to be.
These results support existing literature on revenge and goal endorsement, which
suggests that the endorsement of particular goals matters in the revenge decision-making
process. Power goals in particular have been related to using more direct and violent forms of
revenge (Yoshimura, 2007), as opposed to indirect or verbal forms, suggesting that the goals that
individuals endorsed made a difference in the type of response that those individuals employed
following a provocation. Presumably, this is because certain forms of revenge present themselves
as more fitting for accomplishing particular goals. My results support a similar idea, suggesting
37
that revenge in general may also be more fitting for accomplishing certain goals in comparison
with other, non-vengeful responses.
There were also a number of unexpected correlations between goal endorsement and the
perceived effectiveness of each strategy, correlations that, in retrospect, strengthen the idea that
goal endorsement and perceived effectiveness are closely connected. Not only was goal
endorsement positively related to perceived effectiveness in the ways that I predicted, but
endorsing particular goals was negatively related to certain strategies as well. Wanting power
and justice goals was related to perceiving direct communication as less effective, and seeking
relationship-oriented outcomes was negatively related to the perceived effectiveness of both
revenge and avoidance. If my theorizing is correct, these negative correlations may be due to a
lack of correspondence between the outcomes desired and the outcomes a strategy is perceived to
provide. For example, if an individual wants to repair a relationship, direct communication may
be perceived to give that individual what he or she wants. Revenge and avoidance, on the other
hand, while still having potentially positive consequences, may be perceived as less effective in
meeting that goal because they do not provide the right outcomes—outcomes related to
maintaining or repairing a relationship.
The negative correlations between goal endorsement and the perceived effectiveness of
certain strategies can also be explained through the negative consequences those strategies may
provide. It could be that endorsing a particular set of goals highlights the negative consequences
associated with particular strategies, thus contributing to the perception that the strategy is less
effective. For example, wanting to maintain or repair a relationship may make an individual
more cognizant of potential harm to the relationship, harm that avoidance or revenge behaviors
may be perceived to bring about (Metts & Cupach, 2000; Fitness, 2001). Perceiving such
38
negative consequences may be related to perceiving revenge and avoidance as less effective
compared to when such consequences are not perceived.
The above explanations need not be mutually exclusive. Goal endorsement could be
related to perceived effectiveness through both perceiving that a strategy provides (or does not
provide) desired outcomes and through perceiving that a strategy provides negative
consequences that threaten or thwart a particular goal. One could even use the present data set to
assess each explanation. With more in-depth examination of the listed positive and negative
consequences of each strategy, researchers could examine whether, for example, individuals who
endorse relationship-oriented goals are more likely to list harm to the relationship as a negative
consequence of revenge and avoidance (which, incidentally, they do not appear to do in the case
of revenge, χ2(1) = .34, p = .55, with approximately 35% of all participants listing harm to the
relationship as a negative consequence, implying that the endorsement of goals may not
influence which consequences are perceived) . If any such increased likelihood to perceive
certain negative consequences to the relationship mediated the negative relationship between the
endorsement of particular goals and the perceived effectiveness of certain strategies, then that
would suggest that those negative consequences help explain the negative relationships observed
in my results. Such analyses would be beyond the scope of this thesis, but they represent a
potentially compelling area of future research.
Predicting the Likelihood of Getting Even
The main concern of my thesis is the set of relationships between the perceived
consequences of revenge and revenge decision making, and these relationships are most directly
assessed by my hypotheses regarding the prediction of participants’ rated likelihood of
responding to the provocation through getting even. In constructing these hypotheses, I
39
considered the theoretical implications of social exchange theory and expected utility theory,
which suggested that individuals carefully weigh the costs and benefits of their actions, and that
those costs and benefits should influence the decisions they make, including decisions to take
revenge against a romantic partner. I contrasted this argument with an opposing viewpoint, one
that sees revenge as an emotionally driven phenomenon which cannot be swayed by
consideration of its consequences. These competing perspectives led me to predict that the
perceived consequences of revenge, its perceived effectiveness and costliness in particular,
would, alongside emotional involvement, predict participants rated likelihood of taking revenge.
This prediction was partially supported, in that ratings of revenge’s perceived
effectiveness substantially predicted the rated likelihood of taking revenge. The more effective
that individuals perceived revenge to be, the more they rated themselves as likely to actually
engage in revenge. Anger, which I used as a measure of emotional involvement in the wake of
my failed manipulation, also significantly predicted the rated likelihood of getting even, with
increased anger associated with an increased rated likelihood of taking revenge. Perceptions of
revenge’s costliness—the rated severity of its negative consequences—did not significantly
predict the rated likelihood of getting even. This failure to detect a main effect of perceived
costliness suggests, at first glance, that the negative consequences of revenge do not influence
revenge decision making, counter to my predictions, and that the connection between revenge
and its perceived consequences is limited to the perceived ability of revenge to provide desired
outcomes.
A significant three-way interaction, however, helps to clarify the relationship between
perceived costliness and the rated likelihood of taking revenge. From the results, perceived
costliness is only related to a decreased rated likelihood of getting even when revenge’s
40
perceived effectiveness is low and anger is high. When perceived effectiveness is high, neither
anger nor perceived costliness appear to sway that likelihood, suggesting that individuals feel
that they will be more likely to get even if they think revenge will give them what they want
even if they believe that revenge will be costly and, interestingly, even if they are not particularly
angered by the provocation. When the perceived effectiveness of revenge is low, however, anger
does appear related to an increased likelihood of getting even, which may mean that emotion can
impel revenge despite beliefs that revenge will not effectively provide desired outcomes. It is
here that the perceived costs of revenge appear to have their greatest effect. When anger is high
and the perceived effectiveness of revenge is low perceiving greater costs does appear to sway
revenge decision-making, significantly lowering the rated likelihood of getting even.
These results suggest that I was correct in thinking that perceptions of revenge’s
consequences would be related to revenge decision-making, although the relationships examined
are certainly more complex than I had expected. Even when I had expected a certain amount of
complexity, my observations proved to be more complex still. I had predicted that perceptions of
revenge’s effectiveness and costliness would interact, with each being more strongly related to
the rated likelihood of taking revenge when the other was at low levels, but this moderating
effect only appears to be the case for perceived costliness, with the predictive effects of
perceived effectiveness remaining consistent regardless of the perceived costs associated with
revenge. I had also predicted that the effect of perceived effectiveness and costliness of revenge
would each be moderated by emotional involvement (representing two separate two-way
interactions, one with perceived effectiveness being moderated by emotional involvement, and
one with perceived costliness being moderated by emotional involvement), with the relationships
between these consequence perceptions and the rated likelihood of getting even being stronger
41
when emotional involvement, as measured by anger in this case, was low. Again, the predictive
effects of revenge’s perceived effectiveness appeared consistent regardless of participants’ rated
levels of anger. The perceived costliness of revenge, on the other hand, did indeed appear to be
moderated by emotional involvement, but in an unexpected direction, with perceived costliness
only significantly related to the rated likelihood of getting even when anger was high as opposed
to low.
From this complexity, however, emerged what I believe to be an interpretable and
meaningful (although weak) interaction between perceived effectiveness, perceived costliness,
and anger, one that supports two main ideas: (a) perceptions of effectiveness and costliness are
predictive of the rated likelihood of getting even, even though the effects of perceived costliness
are qualified by considerations of effectiveness and anger, and (b) the relationship between anger
and the rated likelihood of taking revenge cannot be adequately considered without also taking
into account perceptions of revenge’s consequences, both positive and negative. Lay (and
occasionally academic) opinion suggests anger should inexorably drive revenge behavior. My
results, however, tell a different story. The first point directly counters Horney’s (1948)
supposition that individuals cannot be swayed by the consequences of revenge. The second point
helps to weaken, perhaps, the idea that emotion acts as an unqualified and preeminent driver of
revenge behavior. My results suggest that emotion remains an important consideration when it
comes to the decision to take revenge, but that revenge’s consequences are important in their
own right, whether considered independently or in conjunction with emotion.
Although emotion is often treated as a driving force that impels revenge behavior
(Horney, 1948; Neuman, 2012), it is possible that , as my results suggest, emotion may do more
than simply impel, and may instead be deeply connected with reasoned decision-making. Some
42
theorists (Solomon, 1994; Frijda, 1994) view emotion as tied closely to the rational reasons that
underlie behavior. For instance, an individual may feel angry after they have received an
injustice, and may feel that it is the anger that drives revenge, but it is likely that anger is there
because of the injustice. That individual had a reason for feeling angry. To say that emotion is
the sole cause of revenge behavior would thus discount the rational considerations that lead to
feeling angry.
This sentiment is echoed by evolutionary theorists (e.g., McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak,
2012), who, despite seeing anger as the proximal motivator for revenge, view anger as an
evolved mechanism for deterring future harm. In this way, emotion can be framed as a part of a
larger, instrumental process involving the obtaining of benefits and avoidance of costs.
Separating emotion from reason is thus more difficult than it may seem, even when avengers are
not necessarily aware of the reasons for their actions.
Regardless, the weakness of the observed interaction, does suggest that these thoughts
may be of limited practical significance. Although we may be confident that the results were not
due to chance, if the effects of costliness are moderated by an effect that accounts for only one
percent of the variance in the likelihood of getting even, taking into account the interaction may
not allow us to more usefully predict the likelihood of getting even. Further research is needed
to determine whether the strength of the effects described above might be stronger under certain
conditions and examine whether they are important in a real-life context. It may also be that the
interaction would be stronger with a more detailed scenario that elicited a more true-to-life
emotional response.
Intregration With Existing Literature
43
Social exchange theory and expected utility theory. My results support the continued
application of social exchange and expected utility principles to relational and revenge related
phenomena. The analysis, whether deliberate or unconscious, of costs and benefits has been
demonstrated in numerous social and romantic contexts (Murray & Holmes, 2011), and predicts
several indicators of relationship functioning, including satisfaction, commitment and stability
(Sprecher, 2001). My study extends the application of social exchange and expected utility to the
specific area of romantic revenge, an influence already implicit in previous studies that have
examined the positive and negative consequences of romantic revenge (Boon et al., 2011). My
results provide evidence that individuals take positive and negative consequences into account
when making judgments about whether or not they would take revenge against a romantic
partner who has harmed them. This accounting of the costs and benefits suggests that it is fruitful
to think of revenge decision-making in an economic light and that such considerations may allow
researchers to usefully predict revenge behavior.
Despite this support for ideas related to social exchange, my results also suggest that an
approach based entirely on social exchange will likely fail to capture important aspects of
revenge decision-making. When looking strictly at the perceived costs and benefits of revenge, it
would be easy to get the impression that the perceived costs of revenge simply are not related to
the rated likelihood of taking revenge. It requires an examination of factors outside costs and
benefits, factors such as anger, to see that perceived costs do appear to play a role in decisions to
take revenge, albeit under limited circumstances. A more balanced approach that makes use of
costs and benefits alongside more emotion-based conceptualization may provide a more fulsome
picture of revenge.
44
Although social exchange theory is based on practical economic processes and
cognitions, even early adherents of social exchange have tended to incorporate elements of a
more balanced, emotion inclusive approach, referencing emotion and making use of its effects
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Kelly & Thibaut, 1978). For example, exchange theorists posit that
social interactions are based on the economic exchange of resources between individuals, but
some of these resources, such as love, are intangible, emotional concepts that coexist with more
concrete resources such as those that are financial or material (Foa & Foa, 1980; Compranzano
& Mitchell, 2005). Despite making use of emotional concepts, some argue that social exchange
theory often stops short of fully incorporating theories of emotion into social exchange
processes, and that such incorporation augments and improves the utility of social exchange
principles (Lawler & Thye, 1999; for examples of how the ideas presented by Lawler and Thye
have begun to be more broadly applied in recent years, see Kuwabara, 2011; Lively, Steelman, &
Powell; 2010). My results support this idea, suggesting that the incorporation of emotional
elements and theories would be appropriate, if not essential, when applying social exchange
theory to romantic revenge.
Revenge in a romantic context. The present study extends important work already done
on romantic revenge. It builds on studies that have attempted to describe the positive and
negative consequences of revenge (Boon et al., 2011), showing how those consequences are
related to more general perceptions of revenge’s effectiveness and costliness, and how those
general perceptions, in turn, are related to whether or not individuals rate themselves as likely to
engage in revenge behavior. Although knowing more about the consequences of revenge is
important whether or not those consequences influence the decision-making processes of an
avenger (i.e., targets of revenge have to deal with the consequences regardless of what caused the
45
revenge to take place), understanding how consideration of those consequences could translate to
actual incidences of revenge further highlights the importance of such consequences, both
positive and negative, to research on revenge.
Additionally, this study is pertinent to research on what motivates revenge behavior in a
romantic context. Individuals have been shown to list a staggering array of motivations for
vengeful acts, ranging from desires to correct harmful behavior, to obtain feelings of satisfaction,
and to help or protect others (Boon et al., 2009). My research helps clarify some of these
motivations, providing evidence regarding how they might generate revenge behavior. For
example, not only do individuals who take revenge frequently report justice concerns as a
pertinent motivation (around half of participants in Boon et al., 2009 cited this motivation),
having goals related to obtaining justice is related to perceiving revenge as a more effective
response to harm, which, in turn, appears related to ratings of being more likely to get even.
These observed relationships provide insight into how justice-related motivations could lead to
revenge—through being related to perceptions of revenge’s effectiveness.
My results are also helpful in understanding current efforts by scholars to emphasize the
potentially useful, rational, and constructive aspects of revenge. They support the idea that it is
possible to undertake revenge following, and even because of, careful consideration of the
consequences (Murphy, 2001), and that people can choose vengeful responses to a provocation
because they perceive that it will be an effective strategy, providing desired, positive outcomes,
such as preserving or maintaining a sense of justice (Frijda, 1994; Strang, 2002). Supporting
these ideas may help reduce the societal stigma regarding vengeful attitudes and revenge
behavior, making it easier for those who want to get even to do so without additional fear of
social rejection.
46
Limitations
External validity. The major limitation of this study, and one that places a strong caveat
on every aspect of my findings, is the hypothetical nature of both the scenario and participant
responses. My results do not necessarily reflect how participants might respond in the wake of a
romantic partner’s actual infidelity, and the positive and negative consequences listed by
participants did not, and could not, actually happen to them in the context of the questionnaire. It
could easily be that the real pain of infidelity, and the strong emotions attached to that pain
(Beattie, 2005), could overwhelm the observed relationships between revenge’s perceived
effectiveness, its perceived costliness, and the rated likelihood of taking revenge. Even if those
relationships were observed in real-life situations, participants’ rated likelihood of getting even
may not translate to real acts of revenge. The inconsistent relationship between attitudes and
behavior has been well documented (Ajzen & Bishbein, 1977; Fabrigar, Wegener & MacDonald,
2009). The perceived effectiveness and costliness of revenge could certainly influence attitudes
toward revenge behavior, but it is possible my results will be of little use when predicting
revenge behavior itself.
It is also possible that the perceived costliness of revenge may have a much stronger
influence in a real-life revenge context than my results here would suggest. It may be difficult for
individuals to feel inhibited by consequences that they are under no real threat of experiencing,
as is the case in my hypothetical scenario. If participants believed that they would really feel the
guilt or social sanction that they listed as being associated with revenge behavior, then
perceptions of those costs might more strongly predict the likelihood of taking revenge, leading
individuals to rate themselves as less likely to actually engage in revenge. Also, as discussed
above, even if costliness continued to have a limited relationship with participants’ attitudes
47
toward real-life incidences of revenge, those costs may still inhibit the actual expression of
revenge behavior.
Additionally, out of a desire to have participants respond to the idea of an act of
infidelity, rather than to any particular extraneous details I might have provided in a more
detailed scenario, my scenario was also sparse in content that might have served to deepen
participants’ emotional involvement in the vignette. As such, it may be that this lack of detail
may have also meant that individuals were not thinking as deeply about what they felt about the
provocation or the consequences of their actions than they might otherwise have been (although
their detailed responses when actually listing consequences and describing their emotions
suggest that they were thinking quite deeply about such topics). This potential lack of
engagement in the scenario might further weaken the external validity of the results.
I attempted to mitigate these weaknesses by allowing participants to craft the details of
their own responses to the hypothetical provocation and by attempting to manipulate and
measure the effects of emotional involvement. I did this hoping that it would help participants to
care about how they responded to the imagined infidelity, and, even if it did not do so
sufficiently, that I would be able to examine the effects of emotional involvement to the degree
that I was able to instil it.
Despite these efforts the external validity of my study remains severely limited, and it
would thus be unwise to generalize the results of my study beyond what it was meant to
examine. My study was certainly not designed to be the final word on whether and to what effect
individuals consider the consequences of their actions when taking revenge in a naturalistic
setting. My results instead examine if, when the consequences of revenge are considered, such
consideration is predictive of hypothetical revenge decision-making. Providing evidence that it
48
does so, even in a contrived setting, represents an important first step toward understanding how
the perceived consequences of revenge are incorporated into revenge behavior.
Properly correcting the limitations would present a daunting proposition for any
researcher. As with other aggressive, violent, sometimes criminal behavior (Heath et al., 1986),
revenge is difficult to replicate convincingly in the laboratory or adequately capture in a
questionnaire. As such, much of the validity of the decision to take revenge would be lost in the
transition to a sterile research environment. Some have made recent strides toward more
externally valid simulations of punishment behaviors, such as by having participants poke
needles into voodoo doll replicas of targets (Slotter et al., 2012), but even these creative methods
likely do not completely simulate the emotions, behaviors, and consequences of true
provocations and true vengeful responses. Another alternative would be to have participants
make judgments based on the recall of past vengeful experiences, but as recalled memories have
been repeatedly demonstrated to be untrustworthy (Golden, 1992; Hardt & Rutter, 2004), this
solution would be problematic as well. In short, these sorts of measures would likely provide an
improvement over my study in terms of external validity, but would remain a far cry from an
ideal examination of revenge behavior.
Measurement limitations. My results are also limited by the structural inadequacies of
the scale I adapted and used to measure the endorsement of goals following a provocation from a
romantic partner. Several of the hypotheses relating to the relationships between goals and
perceived effectiveness could not be assessed as the subscales relating to those particular goals
were scrapped. Also, although the relationship and power/justice goal scales exhibited excellent
reliability, there are uncertainties as to what these subscales are specifically measuring. The
relationship goal subscale was originally designed to measure relationship goals in a larger social
49
setting (usually the workplace; Obuschi & Tedeschi; 1997) that may not be directly applicable to
relationship goals in a romantic context. The power and justice items, which I had hoped would
measure separate constructs, appeared to capture the same dimension. As many of the power
items used may have been contaminated by ideas of justice (e.g., I want to make my partner
suffer), power may not have been captured as an independent idea, and power goals may have
been associated with perceived effectiveness differently than justice goals had power-related
goals been adequately measured.
In addition to these deficiencies, many of the constructs I assessed, including perceptions
of revenge’s effectiveness and costliness, as well as the likelihood of getting even, were
measured with single items. As such, there is no way to test the reliability of these single item
measures short of obtaining a second set of data from the same sample and using test-retest
reliability procedures. Creating more extensive scales to measure these constructs would likely
be necessary if they are to be studied in the future.
Emotional involvement manipulation. My study was also limited somewhat by the
failure of my emotional involvement manipulation. In particular, the failure of that manipulation
makes it impossible for me to claim a causal connection between emotional involvement (or
anger, particularly, in this case) and the likelihood of taking revenge. Despite the moderately
strong correlation between the two, it could easily be true that being more likely to take revenge
causes increased anger, or, alternatively, that some third variable (e.g., a personality trait) might
lead to feeling increased anger along with making an individual more likely to respond to a
provocation by getting even, resulting in a spurious correlation. However, considering the
extensive literature describing the connection between anger and aggressive behavior generally
(Berkowitz, 2012), and considering that my study was not particularly concerned with
50
conclusively establishing a causal link between anger and romantic revenge, this limitation is far
from fatal. If it was theoretically necessary to establish that anger causes an increased likelihood
of taking revenge, it might be sufficient to generalize from evidence in other contexts involving
aggression, but such questions of causality need not be settled here.
Indeed, using a continuous measure of anger provides several distinct advantages
conceptually and statistically over a manipulated, categorical, independent variable.
Conceptually, anger is not necessarily an all or nothing phenomenon. Individuals can potentially
feel anger in large or small amounts or any point in between (Ghanem & Caplier, 2012). To treat
anger or emotional involvement as a dichotomy of high and low would be to ignore the
continuous nature of experienced emotion. Additionally, using a continuous variable instead of a
categorical one allows for far more sensitivity to small differences in anger between participants,
changes that could potentially covary with small differences in the likelihood of taking revenge.
This sensitivity in measurement allows for greater statistical power, as it is easier to detect
weaker relationships between variables.
As to speculation concerning why the manipulation failed, I suspect that many of the
individuals assigned to the low emotional involvement group either failed to follow instructions
or did not follow them as I had anticipated. When reading through the written responses of those
who were asked to write objectively about their actions the next day, many participants described
actions that may have served to increase emotional involvement in the scenario, such as
describing angry conversations with the offending partner. I had intended that they describe
ordinary, everyday actions (i.e., eating breakfast, going to school, etc) which would serve to
focus their thoughts away from the hypothetical transgression, and had instructed them
accordingly, but it appeared that many of the written responses in the low emotional involvement
51
condition contained ruminative actions, including emotion-focused coping (e.g., crying,
emotional eating, sulking, etc.), which may have focused them back on their emotional reactions
to the scenario. It may have been possible to remove all participants that wrote about emotion
laden actions, but the emotional content was pervasive enough even at first glance that doing so
would have substantially reduced the size of the sample.
Generalizability. Given the sample, and sampling methods, that I employed in this
study, my results are also severely limited in the degree to which they can be generalized to other
or larger populations. Perceptions of the consequences of revenge may indeed play an important
role for undergraduate psychology students, but populations of undergraduates have been known
to differ in many important aspects from non-students, as well as individuals in other cultures
(Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Also, due to convenience sampling, it may also be that
my results are not truly representative of undergraduate students at the University of Calgary, but
instead apply only to psychology students who self-select to participate in studies on romantic
revenge, or who are themselves currently in romantic relationships. Again, it is the role of future
research to examine how much my results can be applied to other populations of interest.
For example, it would be worthwhile to conduct a specific examination of how goals,
along with perceptions of the costs and benefits of revenge, might change during different
periods of life. What an undergraduate student would want to have happen during a conflict with
a romantic partner might differ considerable from, say, what a married individual with children
might want to have happen. The costs of getting even in the latter case may bear a great deal
more weight than in the former case, in part because innocent others (i.e., the children) might be
hurt in the process. Investigating the intricacies and complexities of how these life course
changes relate to the endorsement of goals and the perceptions of costliness and effectiveness
52
will help us to understand how and when the ideas discussed here can generalize to the larger
population.
Contributions
Beyond the contributions to the existing literature already mentioned, the results of my
study may influence how revenge is perceived and handled in a variety of contexts. For example,
if individuals or clinicians wish to intervene in revenge behavior that they feel is inappropriate,
my results suggest that interventions that only emphasize the negative consequences of revenge
may be ineffective. Targeting potential avengers’ perceptions of revenge’s effectiveness, on the
other hand, may have more noticeable results. Pointing out how revenge may not give them the
outcomes they desire, such as by failing to provide a lasting feeling of satisfaction (an assertion
supported by existing research; Boon et al., 2011) may alter revenge behavior more than pointing
out the damage revenge may cause. However, targeting perceptions of costliness may still be
necessary in order to overcome the effects of anger, particularly once revenge is perceived to be
ineffective. Even if individuals do not go so far as to use my results to design interventions, my
observations strengthen the idea that reasoning with friends or family who desire revenge could
potentially make a difference, and that it’s possible for avengers to be dissuaded from enacting
revenge behavior, or perhaps even encouraged toward vengeance should that be considered
appropriate.
Additionally, my results challenge the idea that individuals consumed by anger are
necessarily compelled to take revenge against their presumably better judgment. Where lay
conceptions of revenge behavior may lead individuals to place the blame for revenge on external
factors (i.e., the avenger could not help but take revenge, given the circumstances), my results
suggest that avenger’s internal desires (such as the endorsement of power and justice goals) and
53
perceptions (such as perceptions of revenge’s effectiveness) also influence revenge decisions.
Knowing this may lead outside observers to make more internal attributions for revenge behavior
(i.e., the avenger wanted power or justice, and felt revenge was an effective way to achieve their
goals) that might lead to greater personal culpability for vengeful actions. Whether and when this
adjustment in attributions would be desirable is a separate question, but remains an interesting
implication of my findings.
Future Directions
Although I have suggested several areas for further research above, there are other
avenues of inquiry that could move forward research on consequence perceptions and romantic
revenge. Considering the apparent importance of participants’ ratings of revenge’s perceived
effectiveness, future studies could delve more deeply into the factors and circumstances that may
impact perceiving revenge as an effective strategy. Might there be situations where revenge is
perceived as more effective than in others? Knowing what these situations are and how they
influence perceptions of effectiveness could help us predict when revenge is more likely to
occur. Also, could there be personality traits that predispose one to viewing revenge as a way to
obtain desired results? Finding such traits could help researchers and clinicians locate those more
likely to get even when provoked.
For example, in results from my study not reported here, I found that the traits of
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism (known collectively as the Dark Triad) were
positively related to the likelihood of taking revenge. Furthermore, this relationship was
completely mediated by the endorsement of power and justice goals, as well as perceptions of
revenge’s effectiveness. This set of traits may thus help identify those who are more likely to get
54
even when provoked, and the variables examined in this study may point out important processes
through which the Dark Triad might be connected to revenge.
If the perceived effectiveness of revenge is to be examined more thoroughly, it may be
useful to first develop and validate a more robust measure of perceived effectiveness, one that
does not consist solely of a single item. The process of creating such a scale would allow a more
thorough exploration of the ideas that are captured in the construct of perceived effectiveness,
and would force researchers to answer some of the questions raised by my results. In particular,
if I wanted to fully represent and measure perceptions of effectiveness it would be desirable to
tease apart the relationship between the perceived effectiveness of revenge and revenge’s
negative consequences, to know if items regarding the perceived costs of revenge would need to
be included.
It would also be useful to observationally examine how the consequences of revenge are
perceived. Although doing so would not be a trivial task, designing a study where romantic
partners could ethically engage in acts of revenge in a laboratory setting, and measuring how
effective and costly participants perceive getting even to be, would help establish the external
validity of the findings discussed here. Furthermore, doing so across various stages of the life
course (i.e., youth, young adult, middle age, etc.) would allow for greater generalizability of my
findings through a greater range of human development, as opposed to just undergraduate
students.
Conclusion
Revenge is often thought of as an emotional reaction to perceived harm, but little
attention is given to the potential for revenge to be a measured decision, borne from
consideration of its consequences. In this thesis, I have explored the nature of vengeful decisions,
55
probing the influence of revenge’s perceived consequences, as well as anger, on the rated
likelihood of taking revenge in a hypothetical romantic context. From my results, I conclude that
the perceived effectiveness and costliness of revenge show potential for predicting revenge
behavior, especially when considered in conjunction with the emotion brought about by
interpersonal harm. My results provide an initial empirical foundation for the incorporation of
the consequences of getting even into revenge decision making, as well as prepare the way for
future research on decision making in regard to retaliatory behavior.
56
References
Alicke, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and
what they do. European Review of Social Psychology 20, 1-48.
Aquino, K, Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural
justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and
avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653-668.
Arrow, K. (1966). Exposition of the theory of choice under uncertainty. Synthese, 16(3), 253269.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Barber, L., Maltby, J., & Macaskill, A. (2005). Angry memories and thoughts of revenge: The
relationship between forgiveness and anger rumination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 39(2), 253-262.
Barnard, D. (1985). Survivorship and medical ethics. Death Studies, 9, 115-131.
Beattie, H. J. (2005). Revenge. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53, 513524.
Beck, A. T. (1989). Love is never enough: How couples can overcome misunderstandings,
resolve conflicts, and solve. Harper Perennial.
Berger, C. R. (2002). Goals and knowledge structures in social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & J.
A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 181–212). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Berkowitz, L. (2012). A Different View of Anger: The Cognitive‐Neoassociation Conception of
the Relation of Anger to Aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 322-333.
57
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual,
ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive
work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65-81). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115,
463-501.
Bjorkvist, K., Osterman K., & Langerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression
among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Blume, S. B. (1988). Compulsive gambling and the medical model. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 3, 237-247.
Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2009). Payback: The parameters of revenge in
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 747-768.
Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Deveau, V. L. (2011). Reflections on the costs and benefits of
exacting revenge in romantic relationships. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 43,
128-137.
Cloke, K. (1993). Revenge, forgiveness, and the magic of mediation. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 11, 67-78.
Collens, P. (1998). The value of revenge in analytic theory and practice. British Journal of
Psychotherapy, 14, 502-512.
Costly. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/costly
58
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions
to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871-884.
Effectiveness. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/effectiveness
Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.
Ferrigan, M. M., Valentiner, D. P., & Berman, M. E. (2000). Psychopathy dimensions and
awareness of negative and positive consequences of aggressive behavior in a nonforensic
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 527-538.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 303-315.
Fitness, J. (2001). Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: An interpersonal script
approach. Interpersonal rejection (pp. 73-103).
Fitzpatrick, M. A., Fallis, S., & Vance, L. (1982). Multifunctional coding of conflict resolution
strategies in marital dyads. Family Relations, 31, 61-70.
Frijda, N. H. (1994). The lex talonis: On vengeance. In Stephanie H. M. Van Goozen, Nanne E.
Van de Poll, and Joseph Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 263289). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J.
Gergen & M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.) Social exchange: Advances in theory
and research. New York: Plenum.
Ghanem, K., & Caplier, A. (2012). Towards a full emotional system. Behaviour & Information
Technology, (ahead-of-print), 1-17. DOI:10.1080/0144929X.2011.624639.
Gilovich, T. (1997). Some systematic biases of everyday judgment. Skeptical Inquirer, 21, 3135.
Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2001). A conceptual portrait of
adolescent romantic relationships. In D. A. Kinney (Ed.), Sociological studies of children
and youth (pp. 111-139). London: Elsevier Science.
Golden, B. R. (1992). Research notes. The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective
accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848-860.
Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Griffiths, M. (1993). Fruit machine gambling: The importance of structural characteristics.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 101-120.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of
attribution and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508-522.
Hardt, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood
experiences: review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
260-273.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
60
Heath, L., Kruttschnitt, C., & Ward, D. (1986). Television and violent criminal behavior: Beyond
the Bobo doll. Violence & Victims, 1, 177-190.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466,
29.
Hogarth, R. M. (1975). Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability
distributions. Journal of American Statistical Association, 70, 271-289.
Holmes, T. H., Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
Horney, K. (1948). The value of vindictiveness. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 8, 3-12.
Jonason, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P. (2012). What have you done for me lately? Friendship-selection
in the shadow of the Dark Triad traits. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 400-421.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating
short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.
Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships
among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 542, 525-542.
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2004). A prospective investigation of the relationship
between just-world beliefs and the desire for revenge after September 11, 2001.
Psychological Science, 15, 503-506.
Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D. G. (1995). Anger disorders: Basic science and practice
issues. Issues in comprehensive pediatric nursing, 18(3), 173-205.
Keicolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 472-503.
61
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Kim, S., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Revenge and conflict escalation. Negotiation Journal, 9(1), 3743.
Kuwabara, K. (2011). Cohesion, Cooperation, and the Value of Doing Things Together How
Economic Exchange Creates Relational Bonds. American Sociological Review, 76(4),
560-580.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual
review of sociology, 25, 217-244.
Lemerise, E. A., Fredstrom, B. K., Kelley, B. M., Bowersox, A. L., & Waford, R. N. (2006). Do
provocateurs; emotion displays influence children’s social goals and problem solving.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 555-567.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in working
relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of
theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lively, K. J., Steelman, L. C., & Powell, B. (2010). Equity, emotion, and household division of
labor. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 358-379.
Lochman, J. E., Wayland, K. K., & White, K. J. (1993). Social goals: Relationship to adolescent
adjustment and to social problem solving. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21,
135-151.
Mast, M. S. (2010). Interpersonal behavior and social perception in a hierarchy: The
interpersonal power and behavior model. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 133.
62
McCabe, D. L., & Dutton, J. E. (1993). Making sense of the environment: The role of perceived
effectiveness. Human Relations, 46, 623-643.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness:
Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2012). Cognitive systems for revenge and
forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1-58.
Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger and
sometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of
interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 243-273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Narcissistic personality disorder and
the DSM–V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 640–649.
Mills, J. F., Loza, W., & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive validity despite social desirability:
Evidence for the robustness of self-report among offenders. Criminal Behavior and
Mental Health, 13, 140-150.
Murphy, J. G. (2000). Two cheers for vindictiveness. Punishment & Society, 2, 131-143.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2011), Interdependent minds: the dynamics of close
relationships. New York: The Guilford Press.
Murray, S. L., Pinkus, R. T., Holmes, J. G., Harris, B., Gomillion, S., Aloni, M., Derrick, J. L., &
Leder, S. (2011). Signaling when (and when not) to be cautious and self-protective:
Impulsive and reflective trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 485-502.
Neuman, Y. (2012). On revenge. Psychoanalysis, Culture, & Society, 17, 1-15.
63
Nathanson, C. (2008). Exploring the dynamics of revenge (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
O'Boyle Jr, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). A meta-analysis of
the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 557-579.
O’Hara, E. A., & Robbins, M. M. (2009). Group-conflict resolution: Sources of resistance to
reconciliation: Using criminal punishment to serve both victim and social needs. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 72, 199-217.
Ohbuchi, K., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(24), 2177–2199.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitiveaffective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self deception and impression management in self-reports: the
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. (Manual available from the author).
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36, 556-563.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Rasmussen, K. R. (unpublished). Dissolution as fuel for getting even: A grounded theory of
power dynamics and post-dissolution revenge behavior.
Richard, J. F., Schneider, B. H. (2005). Assessing friendship motivation during preadolescence
and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 367-385.
64
Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship
dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal
Relationships, 12, 213-232.
Sbarra, D., Law, R. W., Lee, L., & Mason, A. E. (2009). Marital dissolution and blood pressure
reactivity: Evidence for the specificity of emotional intrusion-hyperarousal and task-rated
emotional difficulty. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71(5), 532-40.
Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice Sensitivity: Assessment and
Location in the Personality Space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21,
202.
Schwinghammer, S. A., Stapel, D. A., & Blanton, H. (2006). Different selves have different
effects: Self-activation and defensiveness social comparison. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 27-39.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal influence. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodynamics, and
relationship functioning. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of personal relationships (pp. 251-271). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed
flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.
Psychological science, 22(11), 1359-66.
65
Simon, H. A. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in
action: Contemporary approaches (pp. 189-204). New York: Cambridge University
Press
Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Pond Jr, R. S., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G. V.,
& Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner:
The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 102(2), 291-305.
Solomon, R. C. (1994). Sympathy and vengeance: The role of emotions in justice. In S. H. M.
Van Goozen and N. Van de Poll (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 291311). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with
satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599-613.
Stead, R., Fekken, G.C., Kay, A., McDermott, K. (2012). Conceptualizing the dark triad of
personality: Links to social symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 53,
1023-1028.
Stearns, C. Z., & Stearns, P. N. (1989). Anger: The struggle for emotional control in America's
history. University of Chicago Press.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of
attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 25-42.
66
Summerfield, D. (2002). Effects of war: Moral knowledge, revenge, reconciliation, and
medicalised concepts of “recovery”. BMJ, 325, 105-107.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups, New York: Wiley.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). What’s good about revenge? In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B.
H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp 145-160).
Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of
revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 966-984.
doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00038-9
Uniacke, S. (2000). Why is revenge wrong? The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34, 61-69.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 54, 1063.
Fabrigar, L. R., MacDonald, T., & Wegener, D. T. (2010). Distinguishing between prediction
and influence: Multiple processes underlying attitudebehavior consistency. In C. R.
Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, and J. R. Kelly (Eds), Then a miracle occurs:
Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research, pp. 162-185. Oxford
University Press: New York.
Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness, health,
and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness,
67
dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 30, 291-302.
Yoshimura, S. (2007). Goals and the emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 87-98.
68
Tables and Figures
Table 1
Pattern matrix and communalities for a three factor solution of the Goal scale.
Power/Justice Relationship Identity
Come to terms
-.04
.81
-.03
Maintain relationship
.08
.80
-.23
Mutualunderstanding
-.17
.77
.07
Work out compromise
.09
.83
-.13
Constructive discussion
-.17
.64
.36
Clarify problem
-.16
.64
.30
Prompt resolution
.05
.46
.16
Punish partner
.80
-.01
.02
Hurt partner
.88
-.02
-.19
Defeat partner
.79
-.13
-.05
Maintain dominance
.51
.13
.20
Get what they deserve
.78
-.17
-.01
Suffer like I suffer
.81
-.09
-.04
Feel what I feel
.63
-.04
.14
Justice obtained
.76
.09
.07
Restore honor
.41
.06
.46
Restore self-esteem
.17
-.03
.71
Protect from future harm
.05
-.06
.56
Avoid negativefeelings
-.07
.41
-.10
Feel happy
.10
.57
-.37
Note: The cutoff for substantial loadings was r = .40. Oblique rotation.
69
Communalities
.67
.67
.67
.68
.59
.55
.23
.64
.73
.66
.33
.70
.67
.46
.58
.45
.60
.33
.20
.43
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and applicable reliability coefficients for all variables.
Revenge PCI
Revenge NCI
Direct comm PCI
Direct comm NCI
Avoidance PCI
Avoidance NCI
Revenge effectiveness
Revenge costliness
Direct comm effectiveness
Direct comm costliness
Avoidance effectiveness
Avoidance costliness
Power/justice goals
Relationship goals
Social desirability (BIDR)
Vengeance
Anger (PANAS)
Revenge likelihood
Mean
4.04
10.80
11.39
8.19
7.35
10.01
1.87
3.66
3.85
2.57
2.28
3.30
3.47
4.21
10.47
3.16
2.09
2.82
SD
3.76
5.66
6.35
5.15
5.88
5.69
1.13
1.21
1.21
1.24
1.30
1.23
1.47
1.57
5.25
.83
1.18
1.71
70
Reliability (α)
.90
.87
.80
.93
Hypotheses
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,3,4,5
1,3,4,5
1,2
1
1,2
1
2
2
3,4,5
3,4,5
3,4,5
3,4,5
Table 3
The positive and negative consequences of getting even, organized with subheadings for related
consequences.
Positive Consequences
Overall
Frequency
Caused change, feeling or awareness in the
avengee
Percent
Mean
of
Probability
Participants
Ratings
Mean
Severity
Ratings
30.2
45.0
65.6
3.25
Empathy/feeling how the avenger felt
16.7
33.5
67.5
2.90
Educational/understanding/corrective/
deterrence
Hurt/suffering
8.0
13.0
61.5
3.88
3.6
7.5
66.7
3.27
Regret/shame/guilt
1.7
3.5
62.1
3.57
Humiliation
.2
.5
80.0
4.00
Redressed avenger’s feelings/gave closure
22.5
41.0
51.9
3.39
“Good” aspects of revenge related to justice.
17.4
31.5
67.1
3.00
Harm was reciprocated/got even
9.9
20.0
65.5
2.83
Justice served or restored
6.8
14.0
67.7
3.25
Avengee was punished
.7
1.5
83.3
3.00
Gave happiness or satisfaction
12.6
25.0
60.7
2.94
Educated/benefited self/improved reputation
7.0
13.5
55.5
3.31
Increased power and control
3.4
6.0
74.3
3.93
Benefited relationship
.2
0.5
80.0
4.00
Unclear
.7
1.5
No positive outcomes of getting even
10.5
71
Negative Consequences
Overall
Percent of
Mean
Frequency Participants Probability
Ratings
Not right thing to do
Mean
Severity
Ratings
50.4
80.5
79.4
4.34
Made avenger uncomfortable/feel guilty
20.8
54.5
79.3
4.39
Revenge not ethical or moral
8.2
26.0
79.1
4.21
Other people would see it as wrong/childish
5.9
18.0
66.7
4.03
It is wrong to hurt a loved one
5.4
17.5
84.3
4.50
Compromise of self or self-view
4.8
15.0
81.9
4.52
Getting even was immature/childish
2.6
8.0
86.2
4.65
Revenge too serious a response
1.5
5.0
60.0
4.20
Better responses were available
1.2
4.0
81.9
4.13
28.8
63.5
72.4
4.32
10.5
28.0
71.2
4.41
Problem not solved/not working as planned
9.9
29.0
78.6
4.37
Avenger is/could be harmed
4.8
15.5
61.8
4.32
Potential or actual harming of third parties
1.5
4.0
78.5
4.30
Revenge having unpredictable consequences
1.2
4.0
65.0
4.00
Bad things did/could come in return (karma)
.9
3
75.8
3.17
Negative consequences for the relationship
12.5
34.5
81.1
4.06
Caused emotion in the avengee
4.2
13.5
75.6
4.96
Empathy/respect/liking for the avengee
1.4
4.5
83.3
4.11
Revenge not worth it
1.1
3.5
95.0
4.00
Outcome of getting even is
uncertain/ineffective
Cycle of revenge continuing/escalating
72
Negative Consequences
Unclear
Overall
Percent of
Mean
Frequency Participants Probability
Ratings
.2
.5
No negative outcomes of getting even
Mean
Severity
Ratings
.9
Note: Frequency represents the percentage that consequences of that category were listed out of
all consequences of that type (positive or negative). Percent of Participants represents the
percentage of participants who listed a consequence in that category. Mean probability and
severity ratings are the average participants ratings for consequences in that category.
73
Table 4
Relationships between effectiveness, costliness, and indices of positive and negative outcomes for revenge, direct communication, and
avoidance.
Revenge
Effectiveness
.42***
-.16*
Revenge PCI
Revenge NCI
Direct Comm. PCI
Direct Comm. NCI
Avoidance PCI
Avoidance NCI
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .01
Revenge
Costliness
-.06
.21**
Direct Comm.
Effectiveness
.33***
-.15*
Direct Comm.
Costliness
-.14
.08
74
Avoidance
Effectiveness
.35***
-.16*
Avoidance
Costliness
-.19**
.06
Table 5
Relationships between perceived effectiveness and costliness of each strategy with rated goals.
Relationship
Revenge effectiveness
-.19**
Direct comm. effectiveness
.58***
Avoidance effectiveness
-.38***
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .01
Power/Justice
.61***
-.20**
.15*
75
Table 6
Zero-order correlations between all variables used in the regression analysis.
BIDR
Vengeance
Vengeance
-.25***
Anger
-.05
.23**
Effectiveness
-.16*
.60***
Costliness
-.04
-.22**
Likelihood
-.30***
.55***
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .01
Anger
Effectiveness
Costliness
-.19**
.70***
-.16*
.26***
.05
.32***
76
Table 7
Unstandardized betas, t values, and squared semi-partial correlations when predicting the
likelihood of taking revenge.
B(SE)
t
Semi-partial r2
BIDR
-.29 (.10)
-2.80**
.03
Vengeance
.86 (.10)
8.34***
.24
Effectiveness
.95 (.11)
8.91***
.18
Costliness
-.06 (.09)
-.72
.001
Anger
.24 (.09)
2.83**
.02
Effectiveness*Costliness
-.006 (.08)
-.07
<.001
Effectiveness*Anger
-.16 (.08)
-1.95†
.01
Costliness*Anger
-.16 (.09)
-.181†
.01
Eff*Cost*Anger
.16 (.07)
2.28*
.01
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .01. Coefficients are from the step at which each variable was
entered.
77
Figure 1. Scree plot of eigenvalues for components of the goal scale.
78
Figure 2. The effect of costliness moderated by anger and effectiveness. The only significant
slope is (3), b = -.43, t = -2.40, p = .02. Significant slope differences include (1) and (4), p = .03,
and (3) and (4), p = .004.
79
Figure 3. The effect of anger moderated by costliness and effectiveness. The only significant
slope is (4), b = .78, t = 4.06, p < .001. Significant slope differences include (1) and (4), p = .005,
(2) and (4), p = .004, and (3) and (4), p = .003.
80
Appendix A: Materials
Demographic and Personality Measures
1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
2. What is your age in years?
3. Which, if any, of the following racial/ethnic groups do you identify with? (choose all that
apply)
a. Aboriginal (e.g. North American Indian, Metis, Inuit)
b. African Canadian/Black
c. Arab
d. Chinese
e. European Canadian, White
f. Filipino
g. Japanese
h. Latin American/Hispanic
i. Korean
j. South Asian (e.g. East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.)
k. West Asian (e.g. Iranian, Afghan, etc.)
l. Other
4. If you selected “Other” above, please specify.
5. Are you currently involved in a romantic relationship?
a. Yes
81
b. No
6. If yes, how long how long have you been involved in your current relationship (in
months)?
7. What is your partner’s gender?
a. Male
b. Female
8. Please indicate which of the follow best describe(s) your relationship (choose all that
apply)
a. Casual dating
b. Exclusive dating/quite serious
c. Exclusive dating/very serious
d. Engaged
e. Co-habitating (living together)
f. Married
9. How long was your longest romantic relationship (in months)?
10. How many romantic relationships have you been in?
82
Short D3 – Dark Triad Personality Inventory – Items marked with an I are reverse scored.
Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements on a 1 to 5 scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). You can be honest because your name will not be
attached to the answers.
1. It’s not wise to tell your secrets.
2. I Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives.
3. Generally speaking, people won’t work hard unless they have to.
4. There’s a sucker born every minute.
5. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on your side.
6. Careful what you say because you never know who may be useful in the future.
7. It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later.
8. You should wait for the right time to get back at people.
9. There are things you should not tell people because they don’t need to know.
10. People see me as a leader.
11. I I hate being the center of attention.
12. Many group activities tend to be dull without me.
13. I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so.
14. Those with talent and good looks should not hide them.
15. I like to get acquainted with important people.
16. I I feel embarrassed if someone compliments me.
83
17. I have been compared to famous people.
18. I am likely to show off if I get the chance.
19. I like to get revenge on authorities.
20. I I avoid dangerous situations.
21. I am a thrill seeker.
22. Payback needs to be quick and nasty.
23. People often say I’m out of control.
24. It’s true that I can be cruel.
25. People who mess with me always regret it.
26. I I have never gotten into trouble with the law.
27. I like to pick on losers.
84
NPI-16 Short Measure of Narcissicm
Read each pair of statements below and place an “X” by the one that comes closest to describing
your feelings and beliefs about yourself. You may feel that neither statement describes you well,
but pick the one that comes closest. Please complete all pairs. (Responses consistent with
narcissism are shown in bold.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
___
I really like to be the center of attention
___
It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention
___
I am no better or nor worse than most people
___
I think I am a special person
___
Everybody likes to hear my stories
___
Sometimes I tell good stories
___
I usually get the respect that I deserve
___
I insist upon getting the respect that is due me
___
I don’t mind following orders
___
I like having authority over people
___
I am going to be a great person
___
I hope I am going to be successful
___
People sometimes believe what I tell them
___
I can make anybody believe anything I want them to
85
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
___
I expect a great deal from other people
___
I like to do things for other people
___
I like to be the center of attention
___
I prefer to blend in with the crowd
___
I am much like everybody else
___
I am an extraordinary person
___
I always know what I am doing
___
Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing
___
I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating people
___
I find it easy to manipulate people
___
Being an authority doesn’t mean that much to me
___
People always seem to recognize my authority
___
I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so
___
When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed
___
I try not to be a show off
___
I am apt to show off if I get the chance
___
I am more capable than other people
___
There is a lot that I can learn from other people
86
Vengeance Scale:
Listed below are a number of statements that describe attitudes that different people have. There
are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. Read each item and decide whether you agree or
disagree and to what extent. If you strongly agree choose 7; if you strongly disagree choose 1; if
you feel somewhere in between choose any one of the numbers between 1 and 7. If you feel
neutral or undecided, the midpoint is 4.
1. Forgiving is a sign of weakness.
2. It takes courage to forgive someone who has harmed you. I
3. I might forgive, but I’d never forget.
4. Forgiving means making yourself vulnerable because you can always be hurt again.
5. I believe in “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
6. I agree with the statement, “to err is human, to forgive divine.” I
7. I can only “get on with my life” after I’ve been hurt if I forgive the person who hurt me. I
8. Holding a grudge doesn’t help anyone. I
9. Some acts simply don’t deserve to be forgiven.
10. It is not worth my time or effort to try to pay back someone who has wronged me. I
11. It is important for me to get back at people who have hurt me.
12. I try to even the score with anyone who hurts me.
13. It is always better not to seek vengeance. I
14. I live by the motto “let bygones be bygones.” I
15. There is nothing wrong in getting back at someone who has hurt you.
87
16. I don’t just get mad, I get even.
17. I find it easy to forgive those who have hurt me. I
18. I am not a vengeful person. I
19. Revenge is morally wrong. I
20. If someone causes me trouble, I’ll find a way to make them regret it.
21. People who insist on getting revenge are disgusting. I
22. If I am wronged I can’t live with myself unless I get revenge.
23. Honour requires that you get back at someone who has hurt you.
24. It is usually better to show mercy than to take revenge. I
25. Anyone who provokes me deserves the punishment I give them.
26. It is always better to “turn the other cheek.” I
27. To have a desire for vengeance would make me feel ashamed. I
28. Revenge is sweet.
88
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding – Items marked with an R are reverse scored.
Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1
meaning that you strongly disagree and 7 meaning that you strongly agree.
1. My first impressions of people usually turn out to be right.
R
2. It would be hard for me to break any of my bad habits.
3. I don’t care to know what other people really think of me.
R
4. I have not always been honest with myself.
5. I always know why I like things.
R
6. When my emotions are aroused, it biases my thinking.
7. Once I’ve made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion.
R
8. I am not a safe driver when I exceed the speed limit.
9. I am fully in control of my own fate.
R
10. It’s hard for me to shut off a disturbing thought.
11. I never regret my decisions.
R
12. I sometimes lose out on things because I can’t make up my mind soon enough.
13. The reason I vote is because my vote can make a difference.
R
14. My parents were not always fair when they punished me.
15. I am a completely rational person.
R
16. I rarely appreciate criticism.
17. I am very confident of my judgments
R
18. I have sometimes doubted my ability as a lover.
89
19. It’s all right with me if some people happen to dislike me.
R
20. I don’t always know the reasons why I do the things I do.
R
21. I sometimes tell lies if I have to.
22. I never cover up my mistakes.
R
23. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone.
24. I never swear.
R
25. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
26. I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught.
R
27. I have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back.
28. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening.
R
29. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her.
30. I always declare everything at customs.
R
31. When I was young I sometimes stole things.
32. I have never dropped litter on the street.
R
33. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit.
34. I never read sexy books or magazines.
R
35. I have done things that I don’t tell other people about.
36. I never take things that don’t belong to me.
R
37. I have taken sick-leave from work or school even though I wasn’t really sick.
38. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it.
R
39. I have some pretty awful habits.
40. I don’t gossip about other people’s business.
90
Scenario
Please read this scenario carefully, and be prepared to answer several questions about it. As you
read the scenario, please keep in mind the hypothetical romantic partner that you gave a name to
on the previous page:
You have always loved your partner. That has never been a question throughout the three years
that you have been together. Yet finding out that you have been cheated on is painful. The
knowledge of it, that your partner has been seeing someone else off and on for the last six
months, has hurt worse than you could have expected. There is only one question now: what is
there to do?
91
Goal Scale
We are interested in what you would want to have happen if your romantic partner cheated on
you. Please rate how much you would want to achieve each of the following outcomes on a 1 to
7 scale, with 1 meaning not at all strongly and 7 meaning very strongly.
Relationship Items
1. I would want to come to terms with my partner.
2. I would want to maintain a good relationship with my partner.
3. I would want to achieve mutual understanding with my partner.
4. I would want to work out some compromise with my partner.
5. I would want to engender a constructive discussion with my partner.
6. I would want to clarify our problem.
7. I would want to get prompt resolution to the conflict.
Power-Hostility Items
8. I would want to punish my partner for their negative actions.
9. I would want to hurt my partner in some way.
10. I would want to defeat my partner.
11. I would want to maintain my authority or dominance over my partner
Justice Items
12. I would want my partner to get what they deserved.
13. I would want my partner to feel what I feel.
14. I would want justice for what happened.
Identity Items
92
15. I would want to restore my honor, social face, or reputation.
16. I would want to restore my self-esteem and personal pride.
Self-Protect Items
17. I would want to protect myself from future harm.
18. I would want to avoid negative feelings and emotions.
19. I would want to feel happy and content with the situation.
93
Effectiveness, Costliness, and Positive/Negative Consequences Measures
If your partner had cheated on you, that are likely many different ways that you could respond.
We will ask you questions about three of those potential ways:
1. Directly talking to your partner about what happened.
2. Finding a way to get even with your partner.
3. Avoiding or ignoring your partner.
Please rate the following items on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 meaning not at all, and 5 meaning
extremely.
1. How effective do you feel getting even would be?
2. How effective do you feel talking to your partner would be?
3. How effective do you feel avoiding your partner would be?
4. If you chose to get even, how severe do you feel the negative consequences would be?
5. If you chose to talk to your partner about it, how severe do you feel the negative
consequences would be?
6. If you chose to avoid your partner, how severe do you feel the negative consequences
would be?
Please list all the positive consequences you see coming from talking to your partner directly
[getting even, avoiding]. Next to each space below there are two boxes. In first box, please list
how positive that consequence would be on a 1-5 scale (1 = not at all positive, 5 = extremely
positive). In the second box, list the percentage chance out of 100 that represents what you feel
94
is the probability of that consequence occurring. You do not need to fill in all the spaces below,
but please list as many as you can.
Example: Positive consequences of eating ice cream:
-Tastiness 5 -100%
-Joy
4 -80%
-etc.
Please list all the negative consequences you see from talking to your partner about the problem
[getting even, avoiding]. Next to each space below there is a second box. In that box, please list
the percentage chance out of 100 that represents what you feel is the probability of that
consequence occurring. You do not need to fill in all the spaces below, but please list as many as
you can.
Example: Negative consequences of eating ice cream:
-Brain Freezes
4 -50%
-Weight Gain
3 -15%
-etc.
95
Emotional Involvement Manipulation
Emotion-Focused Condition:
Say that when this happens, the next day is a normal weekday. Please take the next five minutes
to write about how you would feel the next day if you found out you had been cheated on by a
romantic partner. What sort of emotions would you have? How would you feel towards that
partner? This screen will automatically move on to the next page after five minutes are up.
Write as much as you can in that time period.
Activity-Focused Condition:
Say that when this happens, the next day is a normal weekday. Pretend that you are someone
else observing the situation from the outside. Please take the next five minutes to list the things
that an outside observer would see you doing the next day. Start in the morning and list every
activity you can think of until you go to sleep that night. Write the list from the perspective of an
outside observer. For example, if your name was Alex, you could write:
Alex’s alarm clock goes off. Alex turns off the alarm and gets up. Alex makes the bed.
96
This screen will automatically move on to the next page after five minutes are up. Write as
much as you can in that time period.
Likelihood of Engaging in Each Strategy
If you had been cheated on, how likely would you be to do the following on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1
meaning not at all likely, and 7 meaning extremely likely?
1. I would try to talk to my partner about it.
2. I would try to get even with my partner somehow.
3. I would try to get past the hurt and move on.
After finding out that your partner had been cheating on you, how would you respond initially?
1. I would try to talk to my partner about it.
2. I would try to get even with my partner somehow.
3. I would try to get past the hurt and move on.
4. I would do something else.
Please write about how you would go about talking to your partner [getting even with your
partner/getting past the hurt and moving on]. Write at least a few sentences.
97
Manipulation Checks
On a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 meaning none or not at all, and 5 meaning an extreme amount:
How much emotion did you feel while answering the last few questions?
How similar would those emotions be to those you would feel if you were cheated on in real life?
How much anger did you feel toward your hypothetical romantic partner?
How similar would that anger be to the anger you would feel against a romantic partner who had
cheated on you in real life?
98
Modified Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
To what extent do you feel the following right now? Answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1
means not at all, and 5 means extremely.
1. Proud
2. Regretful
3. Satisfied
4. Fulfilled
5. Content
6. Rewarded
7. Guilty
8. Angry
9. Happy
10. Justified
11. Frustrated
12. Disturbed
13. Ashamed
14. Distressed
15. Calm
Thank you for your participation in this study!
99
Appendix B: Consequences Coding Document
Positive outcomes of revenge
1. Caused change, feeling, or awareness in the 100venge – Positive outcomes of getting
even will be coded into this category if the avenger stated that getting even was good due
to the fact that some type of emotion, feeling, awareness, lesson, or change (i.e.,
cognitive or behavioural) was experienced by the 100venge. Some examples may
include: feelings of empathy of avenger’s position, feelings of jealousy, feelings of hurt
or suffering, feelings of humiliation, feelings of worry, feelings of regret over the
sparking event, feelings of understanding, functional aspects of revenge that involve
educational functions (i.e., revenge that taught a lesson), positive outcomes of revenge
that serve a deterrent for future negative acts in their romantic relationship or in future
relationships the 100venge might have would be coded into this category (e.g., getting
even was good since it might prevent the 100venge from hurting future partners in that
way). Finally, we would like to differentiate between the six positive outcomes listed
below. If you apply a code in this category and it involves one of the changes, feelings, or
awareness’s listed below, please indicate which one applies.
a. empathy – The 100venge felt or appreciated the experience of the avenger, there
was an empathy of what the avenger endured or experienced.
b. regret/shame/guilt- The 100venge felt or experienced regret, shame, or guilt for
what the avenger endured or experienced.
c. humiliation – The 100venge felt humiliated, embarrassed or lost face for what
he/she did to the avenger (i.e., private or public humiliation).
100
d. educational/understanding/corrective/deterrence – The 101venge learned (or
could have learned) a lesson, learned (or could have learned) not to repeat the bad
behaviour (i.e., deterrence), the revenge corrected (or could have corrected) the
101venge’s bad behaviour, or the 101venge developed an understanding of the
impact/consequences of his/her behaviour.
e. jealousy – It caused the 101venge to experience jealousy or envy.
f. hurt/suffering – The 101venge experienced feelings of hurt or suffer.
g. other functional aspects of revenge – This category is intended for other positive
outcomes of revenge.
2. “Good” aspects of revenge related to justice – All positive outcomes of revenge that
involve the theme of justice will be coded into this category.
a. harm was reciprocated – All positive outcomes of revenge that involve the theme
of reciprocation of harm will be coded into this category (i.e., revenge was good
due to the fact that reciprocity occurred). Common phrases used to articulate this
functional aspect of revenge may include: “gave him a taste of his own medicine,”
“he hurt me so I hurt him,” “I got even.”
b. justice served or restored – All positive outcomes of revenge that involve the
avenger believing that revenge was good due to the fact that justice was served or
restored by his retaliatory actions will be coded into this category. Common
phrases used to denote this function include: “he was getting his just desserts,”
“he was getting what he deserved,” and “justice has happened.”
101
c. 102venge was punished – All positive outcomes of revenge that involve the
avenger believing that getting even was good because the 102venge was punished
for his or her misdeeds will be coded into this category.
d. other positive outcomes of revenge related to justice
4. Redress the avenger’s feelings – All positive outcomes of getting even that involve the
theme of redressing the avenger’s feelings will be coded into this category. Such positive
outcomes may include: the revenge making the avenger feeling better or alleviating
negative feelings; the revenge providing a method of coping or dealing with the original
transgression; the revenge bringing closure to the avenger (e.g., getting even was a way
to achieve closure); or the revenge making the avenger feel morally superior than the
102venge (e.g., avenger felt getting even was good because he didn’t have to stoop to the
same level as his partner).
5. Gave happiness or satisfaction – All positive outcomes of getting even that involve
feeling positive emotions because of taking revenge, such as happiness or satisfaction, as
opposed to no longer feeling bad, will be coded in this category.
6. Educated/benefited self/improved reputation – All positive outcomes of getting even that
involve the avenger learning a valuable lesson, becoming a better person, or improving
one’s reputation with others will be coded in this category.
7. Benefited relationship – All positive outcomes of getting even that involve the theme of
the revenge benefiting the relationship will be coded into this category. Such functional
aspects of getting even may include: the revenge improving the relationship between the
partners (i.e., the 102venge and the avenger) or the revenge bringing attention to
problems in relationship.
102
8. May help/helped others – All positive outcomes of getting even that involve the theme of
the revenge helping or potentially helping others who were close to the relationship will
be coded into this category. Examples include: in the case of domestic abuse, the avenger
might feel that getting even was good since it helped protect her children from future
harm; getting even might help future partners of the 103venge; getting even might help
friends of the avenger/103venge.
9. Increased power and control- All positive outcomes of getting even that involve the
theme of the avenger feeling that a gain in power or control was achieved through the act
of getting even will be coded into this category. Such instances may include – the
avenger believing that getting even was functional since it allowed him/her to “stand-up”
for oneself (i.e., an act of empowerment; showing the 103venge that the avenger did not
deserve to be treated badly and that she would not stand for it); increasing the avenger’s
sense of control or actual control; or the revenge balancing the power inequality caused
by the sparking event.
10. Getting even worked – All positive outcomes of revenge that involve the theme of the
avenger believing that the revenge was effective or worked will be coded into this
category. For example, if the avenger states that getting even was good because it worked
as planned or achieved what it was intended to achieve the positive outcomes of revenge
will be coded into this category.
11. No positive outcomes of getting even – This category is intended for those instances
where there aren’t any functional aspects of getting even.
12. Unclear – This category is intended for those positive outcomes of getting even that are
undistinguishable or are unclear.
103
13. Other positive outcomes of getting even – This category is intended for other positive
outcomes of getting even.
Negative outcomes of revenge
1. Caused emotion in the 104venge – All negative outcomes of getting even will be coded
into this category if the avenger stated that getting even was bad due to the fact that some
type of emotion was fostered in the 104venge. For example, negative outcomes of
revenge would be coded into this category if the avenger stated that getting even was bad
due to the fact that revenge created suffering, problems, hurt, anger, or anxiety for
104venge.
2. Negative consequences for relationship – All negative outcomes of getting even that
involve the theme of the revenge harming the relationship will be coded into this
category. Such dysfunctional aspects of getting even may include: the revenge reducing
or eliminating the relationship trust or trust for the partner; the revenge causing turmoil or
discord in relationship (i.e., the relationship becoming “rocky” or causing the partners to
argue); ruining friendships between the avenger and 104venge or the avenger and other
individuals; a realization of the relationship investment or importance (i.e., the avenger
realizing how much she had invested into the relationship or realized the importance of
the romantic relationship and the damage that could or actually did occur); or the avenger
believing that revenge was bad because it is simply not right in romantic relationships.
3. Outcome of getting even is uncertain / ineffective – All negative outcomes of getting even
that focus on the uncertainty or ineffectiveness of the outcome of revenge will be coded
into this category. Such instances include: the possibility of the cycle of revenge
continuing (e.g., avenger stating that getting even was bad because she didn’t know when
104
she would stop getting even or what would stop her desire to get even); getting even not
solving the intended problem; revenge not working as planned or not accomplishing the
intended goal; the potential or actual harming of innocent bystanders in addition to or
instead of the 105venge; revenge having unpredictable or disproportionate consequences
(i.e., more severe, less severe, unlike what was expect); escalation occurring; the avenger
does or could get hurt; and bad things coming or potentially coming in return (i.e., bad
karma). Finally, we would like to differentiate between the six dysfunctional aspects
listed below. If you apply a code in this category and it involves one of the dysfunctional
aspects listed below, please indicate which one applies.
a. cycle of revenge continuing/escalating – The cycle of revenge could have
continued to occur or the revenge responses could have escalated.
b. problem not solved/revenge not working as planned/not accomplishing intended
goal – The problem that revenge was intended to address was not solved, the
revenge didn’t work as originally planned, or the revenge didn’t accomplish the
original goal intended by the avenger. The main theme of this category is that
revenge was bad since it didn’t work for some reason.
c. potential or actual harming of innocent bystanders – Avenger believed getting
even was bad due to the fact that others could be hurt, in addition to, or instead of
the 105venge.
d. revenge having unpredictable or disproportionate consequences – Revenge had
consequences that were very different that what was intended (i.e., more severe,
less severe, unlike what was expect). The main theme of this category is that
revenge was bad since it was unpredictable for some reason.
105
e. avenger is/could be harmed – Avenger believed that getting even was bad due to
the fact that it might or actually does hurt the avenger (i.e., the avenger realized he
may be hurt by seeking revenge or the avenger stated that getting even was bad
because he realized getting even caused him to endure more hurt).
f. bad things did/could come in return (karma) – Avenger believed getting even was
bad because bad things could or did to come to him/her in return for getting even.
g. other
4. Not right thing to do – All dysfunctional aspects of revenge that involve the theme of
revenge being wrong will be coded into this category. Such instances could include: the
revenge making the avenger feel uncomfortable, guilty, or bad (e.g., “I didn’t feel good
about it, “I didn’t feel comfortable,” and “I kind of feel guilty about it.”); the revenge not
being the right thing to do; the avenger realizing that better responses than seeking
revenge were available; the avenger believing that getting even was not ethical or moral;
the act of getting even being a compromise of the avenger’s self-view (e.g., how the
avenger saw herself); getting even being immature or childish; getting even made the
avenger look bad; or the sparking event not being serious enough or revenge too serious a
response. Finally, we would like to differentiate between the six dysfunctional aspects
listed below. If you apply a code in this category and it involves one of the dysfunctional
aspects listed below, please indicate which one applies.
a. made avenger uncomfortable/guilty/bad – Avenger believed that getting even was
bad due to the fact that it made him/her feel guilty or uncomfortable (i.e., the
avenger didn’t feel good about it, didn’t feel comfortable about it, felt guilty about
it)
106
b. not right thing to do/revenge not ethical or moral – Avenger believed that getting
even was bad due to the fact that the act of getting even is not moral or ethical or
that it was bad, stupid or not right.
c. better responses were available – Avenger stated that revenge was bad because
she could have used other strategies to deal with the transgression.
d. compromise of self and self-view – Avenger believed that getting even was bad
due to the fact that it caused the avenger to act in ways that compromise his/her
self-view (e.g., avenger stated that getting even compromised how she saw
herself, the avenger stated that he/she had to act like someone they weren’t, they
had to stoop to a low/lower level).
e. getting even was immature/childish – Avenger believed that getting even was bad
due to the fact that it was not an appropriate action for a mature adult.
f. provocation not serious enough/revenge too serious a response – Avenger stated
getting even was bad because the sparking event was not serious enough to
warrant the getting even response or because getting even was too serious a
response to the initial transgression.
g. it is wrong to hurt a loved one – Avenger stated that getting even was bad because
it is inappropriate to act that way towards a romantic partner or someone that is
loved.
h. other people would see the action as wrong/petty – Avenger believed that other
individuals would judge or view the act of revenge as wrong, or the avenger as
acting inappropriately.
i. other negative outcomes
107
5. Empathy/respect/liking for avengee – All dysfunctional aspects of getting even that
involve the theme of the avenger having empathy or respect for, or liking of the avengee
will be coded into this category. For example, any dysfunctional aspects of revenge that
involve the avenger realizing that getting even was bad because of a realization that it
would be very upsetting to him if the situation were reversed, the reason would be coded
into this category. Another example that would fall into this category would involve the
avenger stating that revenge was bad due to the fact that she held too much respect or
liked the avengee too much to seek revenge on him or her.
6. Revenge not worth it – All dysfunctional aspects of getting even that involve the theme of
the avenger realizing that some aspect of the revenge was not worth the cost/time/energy
will be coded into this category. Examples include: the avenger realizing that the avengee
the time, or the hassle necessary to take revenge were not worth it.
7. No negative outcomes of getting even – This category is intended for those instances
where there aren’t any dysfunctional aspects of getting even.
8. Unclear – This category is intended for those functional aspects of getting even that are
undistinguishable or are unclear.
Other negative outcomes of revenge – This category is intended for other dysfunctional aspects
of getting even.
108
Appendix C: Consent, Debriefing, Ethics and Recruitment
CONSENT
Name of researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email:
Dr. Susan D. Boon, Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
Kyler Rasmussen, Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary
Title of Project: Perceptions and Decision Making Following Infidelity
This consent form is the only part of the process of informed consent. If you want more details
about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask.
Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. The
University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research
study.
Purpose of the study:
The purpose of this study is to examine how individuals’ perceptions of the consequences of
their actions influence decision making when harmed by a romantic partner. You have been
asked to participate because you are currently involved in a romantic relationship.
The data collected from this study will serve as the basis for conference presentations and journal
articles. The data may also be used in the future for other research purposes related to the study
of perception and decision making following infidelity (e.g., it may be used to inform research
projects undertaken by our undergraduate or graduate students or in collaboration with other
researchers in the future). In all presentations and uses of the data, however, your personal
identity will not be disclosed. In addition, where results of this study are published or publicly
presented, it is possible that research assistants and others who contributed to the project may be
indicated as co-authors.
What will I be asked to do?
You will be asked to fill out a questionnaire which includes demographic questions and several
personality inventories. You will be asked to read a hypothetical relationship scenario, and
asked to answer questions and write about what you would do in that situation. This
questionnaire will take roughly 30 minutes to complete.
Please note that your participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate
altogether, you may refuse to participate in parts of the study (i.e., you may refuse to answer
questions you do not wish to answer), and you may withdraw from the study at any time without
penalty or loss of the credits to which you are otherwise entitled.
What type of personal information will be collected?
109
We will collect basic demographic information, as well as information on your history with
romantic relationships. To enable us to manually assign your research participation credit, we
will ask for your University of Calgary email address and the email address for the email account
you check most regularly. You should recognize, however, that the fact of your participation
will not be anonymous if you participate in a group setting. In any event, only the researchers
listed on this consent form, their approved research assistants, and future students/collaborators
will have access to your personal information. The email addresses will be stripped from the data
file once data collection for the session has been completed.
Are there risks and benefits if I decide to participate?
Risks: The risks associated with participating will not exceed that which you would normally
encounter in daily life.
There is a chance that discussing harm from a hypothetical romantic partner will cause you to
feel upset. If you foresee this as a possibility for you, please feel free to withdraw from the study
at this point. Should you become upset or distressed during the survey, you may terminate the
survey at that time. If you discontinue the study, any data you have provided up to that point
will be retained for analysis. If you would like to speak to someone and receive help, the
University offers a confidential counseling service to all current students. The Counseling Centre
is located in the Wellness Centre, MacEwan Student Centre 370 and will accept walk-in or
telephone calls. You can call (403) 210-9355 to make an intake appointment with an intake
counsellor. There is no fee for counselling.
There is also a minimal risk that portions of anonymous responses quoted in conference
presentations or manuscripts may be identified by someone familiar with a particular situation.
Benefits: This study will provide you with an opportunity to see how research is conducted and
to participate in a research project. Through your participation in this study, you may develop
some interests in a new topic, or further your appreciation for an area of study. You will receive
0.5 research participation credits for completing the survey.
What happens to the information that I provide?
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to discontinue participation at
any time without penalty or the loss of any research participation credit to which you may be
entitled. If you choose to withdraw, we may retain for analysis any data you may have completed
at the time of withdrawal.
Although the fact that you participated in this study may be known to others if you participate in
a group setting, all responses you provide will be kept strictly anonymous and confidential. Only
the researchers listed on this consent form, their approved research assistants, and future
students/collaborators working with Dr. Boon will have access to your data. With the exception
of your University of Calgary email address and the address for the email account you use most
frequently, we will neither ask for nor retain names or other personal identifying information.
The email addresses will be stripped from the data file as soon as data collection has been
110
completed. Electronic records of the data from your responses will be stored in password
protected computer accounts to which only the researchers, their approved assistants, and future
students/collaborators will have access. The data will be retained indefinitely. Results will be
reported on a group basis for any presentation or publication of results.
For the purposes of presentations or the publication of results, we may quote information
obtained from the open ended questions. However, as no personal identifying information will
be asked for or retained as part of this study, we will not be able to identify who the information
belongs to and, therefore, participants will remain anonymous. You should know, however, that
there is a remote chance that a direct quotation could identify you (however, unavoidably) should
the audience/readers include individuals you know. As mentioned above, all remaining data will
be summarized in group form.
Consent:
Your selection of the option “I Agree” below indicates that you: 1) understand to your
satisfaction the information provided to you about your participation in this research project and
2) agree to participate as a research subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor
release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional
responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time and to skip any
questions that you do not feel comfortable answering. You should feel free to ask fro
clarification or new information throughout your participation.
Questions/Concerns:
If you have any further questions or want further clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Dr. Susan D. Boon
Department of Psychology/Faculty of Arts
(403) 220-5564
[email protected]
Kyler Rasmussen
Department of Psychology/Faculty of Arts
[email protected]
If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please contact
Russell Burrows or Cari Jahraus, Ethics Resource Officers, Research Services Office, University
of Calgary at (403) 220-3782; email [email protected] or [email protected].
111
Debriefing (Post-Project Discussion)
The desire to get even is a desire almost everyone can relate to. Individuals hurt us, and we often
have the desire to hurt them back, even if that desire never finds expression. I seek to understand
what it is that holds individuals back from taking revenge in the context of romantic
relationships. Vengeful acts impact the lives of many, for good or ill, and finding out what holds
some people back from taking revenge will help psychologists better understand how individuals
decide to get even.
Individuals I have previously interviewed described two important considerations that stopped
them from putting vengeful desires into action. First, they feared the negative consequences that
would come from taking revenge. Second, they felt that getting even would not accomplish
anything. In other words, they saw revenge as both costly and ineffective, and, according to
them, these beliefs affected how they behaved. However, there are some people, including
Horney, an influential psychodynamic theorist, who believe that those with desires for revenge
cannot be swayed by considering the consequences of their actions.
Other theorists would disagree, particularly those who believe that romantic partners constantly
weigh the costs and benefits of actions within a relationship. For example, if one partner says
something hurtful to the other, there are a lot of ways that partner could respond. They could
hurl hurtful things back at their partner, they could completely ignore the hurtful words and try to
forget them, or, perhaps, they could try to directly communicate how they felt. Which response
they opt to take would be affected by how they perceive the consequences—that is, the costs and
benefits—of each option. Would hurling back insults work? Would it just make the partner
more angry and cause them to be hurt more?
In theory, people will likely select the response that they perceive as most effective or least
costly. If the decision to take revenge functions this way, perceptions of the costs and
effectiveness of revenge should have an effect on revenge behavior.The purpose of this study
was to measure the perceived effectiveness and perceived costliness of revenge, as well as
perceptions of alternative strategies such as talking directly to a partner or trying to move on. I
want to see if knowledge of those perceptions can predict the decision to get even. I
hypothesized that individuals who perceived revenge as less costly or more effective than
competing options would rate themselves as more likely to take revenge. The same should be
true for the other options, with people who perceive direct communication or moving on as less
costly or more effective rating themselves as more likely to engage in those strategies.
I also randomly assigned participants into one of two groups. One group was asked to write
about what they would do the day after finding out about the infidelity. The other was asked to
write about how they would feel the day after. The idea is that the second group would be more
emotionally involved in the scenario because talking about feelings tends to arouse emotions
more than talking about actions. If it is even partially true that our emotions are what drive us to
take revenge, perceived consequences should have less of an influence on how those in the
emotionally involved group respond to the scenario than it does on those in the first group.
112
If it is found that considering the consequences of revenge does influence revenge decision
making, friends, family, or therapists of those considering revenge may have more confidence
that their counsel will have some effect. The results of this study will also help researchers better
understand the decision to take revenge more generally, as well as encourage more informed
decision making for those who desire to get even.
We would like to thank you for participating in this study. Your time and effort are greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions about this study or would like to know more about
relationship research at the University of Calgary, please contact:
Dr. Susan D. Boon
[email protected]
403-220-5564
Admin 231B
Or
Kyler Rasmussen
[email protected]
403-805-7243
Admin 231
If you are interested in the topic of revenge in romantic relationships, you may wish to read:
Sheppard, K. E., & Boon, S. D. (in press). Predicting appraisals of romantic revenge: The roles
of honesty-humility, agreeableness, and vengefulness. Personality and Individual Differences.
Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Deveau, V. L. (2011). A taste of their own medicine: Reflections
on the costs and benefits of exacting romantic revenge. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Sciences, 43 (2), 128–137.
Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L, & Alibhai, A. M. (2009). Payback: An Exploration of the Parameters
of Revenge in Romantic Relationships, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26 (6-7),
747-768.
Yoshimura, S. M. (2002). An evolutionary approach to communicating vengeance in romantic
relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
If you are interested in the topic of revenge in interpersonal relationships more generally, you
may wish to read:
Yoshimura, S. (2007). Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 87-98.
113
SONA Advertisement
Perception and Decision Making Following
Infidelity
Abstract Credit
Description You will fill out a questionnaire and react to a hypothetical scenario about a
romantic relationship.
Eligibility Must currently be involved in a romantic relationship.
Requirements
Sign-Up N/A
Restrictions
Duration 30 minutes
course
Researcher(s) Kyler Rasmussen ([email protected])
Dr. Susan D. Boon ([email protected])
This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the
Research Ethics Board at University of Calgary, (7399).
114