Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
10.1177/0146167204264047PERSONALITYEisenberger et al. AND / REVENGE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Who Takes the Most Revenge? Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement Robert Eisenberger Patrick Lynch Justin Aselage Stephanie Rohdieck University of Delaware The authors report that beliefs favoring the reciprocation of Hammarabian code, later in Aristotle’s writings, and in unfavorable treatment form a unitary factor that is distinct from the Biblical injunction of “A life for life, eye for eye, tooth beliefs favoring the reciprocation of favorable treatment. Indi- for tooth . bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23-25, New vidual differences in endorsement of this negative reciprocity American Standard Version). In common usage, the norm were related to (a) beliefs that people are generally malevo- term retribution emphasizes the return of unfavorable lent; (b) inclination toward anger in everyday life; (c) anger, dis- treatment as an appropriate response to a misdeed (Web- agreement, and ridicule directed toward a new acquaintance ster’s Universal College Dictionary, 1997). The terms revenge who treated participants unfavorably; and (d) reduced anxiety, and vengeance give recognition to the anger that gener- positive emotional engagement, and encouragement of a new ally accompanies an individual’s return of unfavorable acquaintance who treated participants favorably. These find- treatment. Beyond their subtle differences, these terms ings suggest that individual differences in endorsement of the capture the general ethic that unfavorable treatment negative norm of reciprocity influence the extent of vengeance. should be paid back in kind. In addition to its role in interpersonal relationships, retribution is used to reaffirm and validate moral stan- Keywords: revenge; vengeance; reciprocity; retribution; anger dards (Vidmar, 2002b). Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson (2002) found that most college students endorse a just desserts model of criminal justice rather than a deter- arming others invites anger and revenge. When H rence model. Most students believe that criminal pun- partners in either normal or distressed marriages were ishment should be determined by the seriousness of the asked to discuss ways to resolve their disputes, the annoy- crime rather than by punishment’s effectiveness in ance and criticism expressed by one partner produced preventing similar crimes. anger and criticism by the other (e.g., Cordova, Jacob- Justifications for interpersonal retribution have son, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Krokoff, Gottman, & received considerable attention from philosophers, nov- Roy, 1988; Sabourin, 1995; Zietlow & Sillars, 1988). elists, and playwrights (Henberg, 1990) but surprisingly When college students disagreed with the views of others little analysis by social scientists (see Vidmar, 2002a). on a discussion topic, the disagreement was returned on Gouldner’s (1960) seminal explication of the reciprocity a subsequent discussion topic (Cialdini, Green, & Rusch, norm dealt primarily with the obligation to repay favor- 1992). able treatment. However, he did briefly discuss a possible According to Aristotle (384-323 B.C.), a conspicuous slight without justification produces anger and an impulse toward revenge, whose fulfillment produces Authors’ Note: Patrick Lynch is now with the North Star Leadership pleasure (Aristotle, 1941, pp. 1380-1381; see Sabini & Sil- Group. Stephanie Rohdieck is now at Ohio State University. Please ad- ver, 1982). Harm returned for harm received is a venera- dress correspondence and reprint requests to Robert Eisenberger, Psy- chology Department, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; e- ble moral precept that provides social approbation for mail: [email protected]. revenge and that serves the societal objective of discour- PSPB, Vol. 30 No. X, Month 2004 1- aging mistreatment. The principle of retaliation (lex. DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264047 talionis) was stated some 3,000 years ago in the © 2004 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 1 2 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN negative reciprocity norm: incorporating a retaliation Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987; Greenberg, 1980). People principle in which “the emphasis is placed not on the who are very trusting that others are benevolent should return of benefits but on the return of injuries” (p. 172). strongly support the positive reciprocity norm as an Other researchers have similarly argued that retribution effective way to maximize long-term gains. In contrast, for physical and symbolic mistreatment is encouraged by individuals who endorse vengeance as an important a negative reciprocity norm (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1992; strategy to avoid being taken advantage of should have Helm, Bonoma, & Tedeschi, 1972; Tedeschi, 1983; little trust in the benevolence of others. Therefore, Youngs, 1986). expectational trust should be more closely related to Based on Gouldner’s view, the negative norm of reci- endorsement of the positive reciprocity norm than to procity would comprise a unitary set of beliefs favoring endorsement of the negative reciprocity norm. retribution as the correct and proper way to respond to We wished to distinguish the negative reciprocity unfavorable treatment. A person’s endorsement of the norm from two personality traits that might foster negative norm of reciprocity might be influenced by revenge following unfavorable treatment. First, need for enculturation and by rewards or punishments received dominance involves the inclination to “control one’s for retributive behaviors. In addition, individuals with a environment, influence others, and express opinions propensity toward anger might more strongly endorse forcefully” (Gray, Jackson, & McKinlay, 1991, PAGE?). the negative reciprocity norm as a justification for con- People with a strong need for dominance might be summating their anger by punishing the instigator of inclined to interpret unfavorable treatment as an mistreatment. attempt to control their behavior through intimidation. The present studies were initiated to obtain evidence A high need for dominance might encourage endorse- concerning the existence of a negative reciprocity norm ment of the negative reciprocity norm as conducive to and the influence of the individual’s endorsement of the maintaining control. Therefore, we wished to show that norm on the return of unfavorable treatment. The first the need for dominance and the negative reciprocity study assessed whether people possess a distinctive set of norm are distinct. Second, impulsivity has been under- beliefs concerning the appropriateness of returning unfavorable treatment. The second study examined the stood as the tendency to act spontaneously, without relationship of individual differences in the endorse- deliberation, and to give free vent to one’s wishes, feel- ment of the negative reciprocity norm with emotional ings, and emotions (Jackson, 1967). Impulsive individu- and retributive reactions to unfavorable and favorable als might endorse the negative reciprocity norm as a jus- treatment. tification for spontaneous reciprocation of unfavorable treatment. Thus, we examined the distinctiveness of the negative reciprocity norm from impulsivity. STUDY 1: NEGATIVE RECIPROCITY BELIEFS Individuals with a high proclivity toward anger would As an alternative to distinct positive and negative reci- strongly favor the negative reciprocity norm as private procity norms, beliefs concerning the return of favor- and public justification for consummating their anger able and unfavorable treatment might comprise a single with retribution when they are mistreated (cf. Averill, norm supporting the return of both favorable and unfa- 1982; Sabini, 1995; Sabini & Silver, 1982). We therefore vorable treatment. On the basis of such a general reci- predicted a positive relationship between endorsement procity norm, individuals strongly endorsing positive of the negative reciprocity norm and the self-assessed reciprocity also would tend to strongly endorse negative tendency toward anger in everyday life (cf. Buss & Perry, reciprocity. By contrast, based on our assumption of a 1992). distinct negative reciprocity norm, we predicted little relationship between negative and positive reciprocity Method beliefs. To provide additional evidence on the distinctiveness PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN of the negative and positive reciprocity norms, the first study considered the relationship of each to interper- As part of a college course requirement, 564 introduc- sonal trust. Several investigators have suggested that soci- tory psychology students (193 men, 371 women) were ety promotes a generalized expectational trust in the given a questionnaire concerning (a) the advisability of benevolence and helpfulness of others (Cunha, 1985; returning unfavorable treatment (negative reciprocity Deutsch, 1958; Pruitt, 1981; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, norm), (b) the advisability of returning favorable treat- 1984). According to Gouldner (1960), the positive reci- ment (positive reciprocity norm), (c) generalized trust procity norm serves as a starting mechanism that encour- in the beneficence of others (expectational trust), (d) ages individuals to invest their resources in others who the traits of dominance and impulsivity, and (e) the dis- have the capacity to meet their needs (cf. Eisenberger, position toward anger in everyday life. Eisenberger et al. / REVENGE 3 1. If someone dislikes you, you should dislike them. 2. If a person despises you, you should