The age-old adage suggests that revenge is a dish best served cold, implying that delayed retaliation is the most satisfying. However, a recent study from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) challenges this notion, revealing that people actually tend to prefer their revenge served hot and fast.
Published in Motivation Science, the study titled “Some Revenge Now or More Revenge Later? Applying an Intertemporal Framework to Retaliatory Aggression” delves into the human desire for vengeance. Through a series of six experiments involving over 1,500 participants, researchers explored the preference between immediate, smaller acts of revenge versus larger, delayed retribution. The consistent finding? Participants overwhelmingly leaned towards immediate gratification in their vengeful pursuits.
“Our findings indicate a clear preference for a ‘hot-and-ready’ approach to revenge, rather than the stereotypical cold, calculated, and delayed strategy,” explains Dr. David Chester, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at VCU and director of the Social Psychology and Neuroscience Lab. This lab is dedicated to understanding the underlying causes of interpersonal harm, and this study provides valuable insights into retaliatory aggression.
While the study highlights the general inclination for immediate revenge, it also uncovered the fascinating possibility of shifting this preference. The researchers discovered that when participants were prompted to dwell on past grievances, their preference began to sway towards delayed, but more substantial, revenge.
Dr. Samuel West, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow at VCU Health’s Injury and Violence Prevention Program, elaborates on this shift: “By experimentally manipulating factors like rumination on past provocations, we successfully guided participant preferences towards choosing delayed-but-greater revenge.” This inclination persisted even when participants were asked to consider real-life individuals who had wronged them, demonstrating the robustness of the effect. Despite the hypothetical nature of the revenge scenarios in the experiments, the shifts in preference remained significant and observable.
One experiment vividly illustrated this point. Participants engaged in a video game, believing they were competing against a real person. They were given the choice to inflict a minor noise blast on their opponent immediately or to administer a more intense blast the following day. Another experiment placed participants in a virtual chat room where they were intentionally excluded from conversations. Subsequently, they were given the opportunity to decide how long an offending chat participant would have to endure painfully cold water submersion.
Across these diverse experiments, the overarching trend remained consistent: immediate retaliation was generally favored. However, the research team noted a critical nuance: the desire for delayed revenge surfaced more prominently in individuals prone to dwelling on past injustices and those with pre-existing tendencies towards inflicting harm.
“Interestingly, participants who favored delayed-but-greater revenge demonstrated a stronger willingness to wait for their desired vengeance than for monetary rewards,” Dr. West pointed out. “Revenge, for these individuals, retained its value for a longer duration than money.” Furthermore, the study revealed that nearly half of the participants (42%) exhibited a predisposition towards waiting for more severe revenge, and these individuals often displayed antagonistic traits such as sadism and angry rumination.
Dr. Chester suggests that the preference for immediate revenge aligns with the idea of proportionate and timely responses to wrongdoing, aiming to deter future provocations. However, he also acknowledges the validity of the “Revenge Dish Best Served Cold” concept, particularly when provocations are deeply impactful and lead to rumination, or when the provoked individual possesses antagonistic personality traits. In such cases, delayed, more calculated revenge may become the preferred approach.
This pioneering study is considered the first systematic investigation into the intertemporal dynamics of aggression. Its findings offer valuable contributions to contemporary theories of aggression and broader understandings of antisocial behavior.
The researchers conclude, “Life is often punctuated by provocations. The point at which individuals deem an antagonism worthy of revenge, and how they decide between immediate versus delayed, but greater, retaliation are critical questions.” Their research reveals that, much like other rewards, people generally prefer immediate gratification when it comes to revenge. However, this preference is malleable, influenced by factors like rumination and personality. Intriguingly, those who opt for delayed revenge are not necessarily impulsive individuals, but rather demonstrate a capacity for self-regulation in their pursuit of vengeance.
The study’s co-authors include VCU alumni Dr. Emily Lasko, doctoral student Calvin Hall, and recent graduate Nayaab Khan, alongside Dr. West and Dr. Chester.
