While the age-old adage suggests that “revenge is a dish best served cold,” groundbreaking research from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) challenges this notion. A new study reveals that when it comes to retaliation, people overwhelmingly prefer immediate vengeance over delayed gratification.
The study, titled “Some Revenge Now or More Revenge Later? Applying an Intertemporal Framework to Retaliatory Aggression,” which is slated for publication in Motivation Science, delves into the human preference for the timing of revenge. Through a series of six experiments involving over 1,500 participants, researchers explored the choices individuals make when faced with the opportunity to enact revenge. The consistent finding? People lean towards swift retribution.
“Our findings indicate a clear preference for a ‘hot-and-ready’ approach to revenge, contrasting with the traditional idea of a cold, calculated, and delayed act of vengeance,” explains Dr. David Chester, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Psychology at VCU and director of the Social Psychology and Neuroscience Lab. This lab is dedicated to unraveling the complexities of human aggression and harmful behaviors.
However, the study also uncovered nuances in this preference for immediate revenge. Researchers discovered that it’s possible to sway individuals toward favoring delayed revenge under specific conditions. When participants were prompted to dwell on past provocations and injustices, their preference shifted towards a larger, albeit delayed, act of revenge, over a smaller, immediate one.
“By experimentally manipulating factors like rumination on past wrongs, we successfully shifted participant preferences toward choosing delayed-but-greater revenge,” notes Dr. Samuel West, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow with the Injury and Violence Prevention Program at VCU Health. “This preference even held true when we asked participants to consider real-life individuals who had caused them pain, serving as hypothetical targets. Despite knowing their choices were hypothetical and wouldn’t cause actual harm, these shifts in preference were consistently observed.”
One experiment involved participants playing 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 wait until a follow-up session the next day to deliver a more intense noise blast. Another experiment placed participants in a virtual chat room where they were intentionally excluded from the majority of the conversation. Subsequently, they were given the opportunity to decide how long one of the excluding participants would have to immerse their hand in painfully cold water.
Across these varied experiments, the overarching trend remained: most people initially opt for immediate retaliation. However, the study highlights that a preference for delayed revenge can emerge, particularly in individuals who ruminate on past grievances or possess a predisposition for inflicting harm.
“Interestingly, participants who favored delayed-but-greater revenge displayed a stronger willingness to wait for revenge compared to waiting for monetary rewards,” West points out. “In essence, revenge held its value for a longer duration than money for these individuals. Our studies revealed a significant divide in preferences, with 42% of participants showing a greater inclination to wait for more severe vengeance. Adding another layer of complexity, we found that these individuals also exhibited more antagonistic traits, such as sadism – deriving pleasure from others’ suffering – and a tendency towards angry rumination.”
Chester suggests that the preference for immediate retaliation is logical for many, as people often view a swift, proportionate response as necessary to deter future provocations. It serves as an immediate lesson to those who have wronged them.
“However,” Chester concludes, “when provocations are deeply hurtful and lead to persistent rumination, or when individuals provoke someone with inherently antagonistic personality traits, revenge might indeed become a dish best served cold. In these cases, the desire for a more calculated and severe delayed revenge can take hold.”
This pioneering study is considered the first systematic exploration of an intertemporal framework in the context of aggression. Its findings offer valuable insights into contemporary aggression theories and broader understandings of antisocial behavior.
“Human interactions are often filled with provocations. At some point, individuals determine that certain antagonisms have crossed a line, warranting revenge. The critical question then becomes: do people seek immediate, albeit lesser, revenge, or do they exercise patience and inflict greater revenge later?” the researchers pose. “Our six studies demonstrate that people approach intertemporal decisions about revenge similarly to other rewards – preferring immediate gratification. Consistent with established aggression theories, these preferences are readily influenced by experimental provocation, and individuals with stronger antagonistic traits show a greater inclination to wait for a more impactful act of revenge.”
The researchers add, “However, our findings challenge the notion that those who wait for greater revenge are simply impulsive and uninhibited. Instead, they appear to demonstrate enhanced self-regulation in pursuing a more calculated form of vengeance.”
The research team included VCU alumni Dr. Emily Lasko, Ph.D., VCU psychology doctoral student Calvin Hall, and recent VCU undergraduate psychology program graduate Nayaab Khan, alongside West and Chester.
Subscribe to VCU News
Stay updated with the latest news from VCU by subscribing to their newsletter at newsletter.vcu.edu.
