Hubbry Logo
RevengeRevengeMain
Open search
Revenge
Community hub
Revenge
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Revenge
Revenge
Revenge
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Justice and Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime by Pierre-Paul Prud'hon, c. 1805–1808

Revenge is defined as committing a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real[1] or perceived.[2] Vengeful forms of justice, such as primitive justice or retributive justice, are often differentiated from more formal and refined forms of justice such as distributive justice or restorative justice.

Function in society

[edit]
Engraving by Gustave Doré illustrating the Erinyes, chthonic deities of vengeance and death
Shakespeare's Hamlet tells a history in which a man avenged the murder of his father by killing his uncle.[3] Artist: Gustave Moreau.

Social psychologist Ian McKee states that the desire for the sustenance of power motivates vengeful behavior as a means of impression management: "People who are more vengeful tend to be those who are motivated by power, by authority and by the desire for status. They don't want to lose face".[4][5]

Vengeful behavior has been found across a majority of human societies throughout history.[6] Some societies encourage vengeful behavior, which is then called a feud.[7] These societies usually regard the honor of individuals and groups as of central importance. Thus, while protecting their reputation, an avenger feels as if they restore the previous state of dignity and justice. According to Michael Ignatieff, "Revenge is a profound moral desire to keep faith with the dead, to honor their memory by taking up their cause where they left off".[8] Thus, honor may become a heritage that passes from generation to generation. Whenever it is compromised, the affected family or community members might feel compelled to retaliate against an offender to restore the initial "balance of honor" that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor might expand by bringing the family members and then the entire community of the new victim into the brand-new, endless cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.[9]

History

[edit]
German announcement of killing 2300 civilians in Kragujevac massacre as retaliation for 10 killed German soldiers. Nazi-occupied Serbia, 1941.

Francis Bacon described revenge as a kind of "wild justice" that "does [..]. offend the law [and] putteth the law out of office."[10]

Feuds are cycles of provocation and retaliation, fueled by a desire for revenge and carried out over long periods of time by familial or tribal groups. They were an important part of many pre-industrial societies, especially in the Mediterranean region. They still persist in some areas, notably in Albania with its tradition of gjakmarrja or "blood feuds", revenge that is carried out not only by the individual, but by their extended relations for generations to come.[11]

Blood feuds are still practised in many parts of the world, including Kurdish regions of Turkey and in Papua New Guinea.[12][13]

In Japan, honouring one's family, clan, or lord through the practice of revenge killings is called "katakiuchi" (敵討ち). These killings could also involve the relatives of an offender. Today, katakiuchi is most often pursued by peaceful means, but revenge remains an important part of Japanese culture.[14]

Social psychology

[edit]
For broader coverage of this topic in Organizational psychology, see Workplace revenge.

Philosophers tend to believe that to punish and to take revenge are vastly different activities:[15] "One who undertakes to punish rationally does not do so for the sake of the wrongdoing, which is now in the past - but for the sake of the future, that the wrongdoing shall not be repeated, either by him, or by others who see him, or by others who see him punished".[16] In contrast, seeking revenge is motivated by a yearning to see a transgressor suffer; revenge is necessarily preceded by anger, whereas punishment does not have to be.[17]

Indeed, Kaiser, Vick, and Major point out the following: "An important psychological implication of the various efforts to define revenge is that there is no objective standard for declaring an act to be motivated by revenge or not. Revenge is a label that is ascribed based on perceivers’ attributions for the act. Revenge is an inference, regardless of whether the individuals making the inference are the harmdoers themselves, the injured parties, or outsiders. Because revenge is an inference, various individuals can disagree on whether the same action is revenge or not."[17]

Belief in the just-world fallacy is also associated with revenge: in particular, having strong experiences or challenges against, can increase distress and motivate individuals to seek revenge, as a means of justice restoration.[18]

A growing body of research reveals that a vengeful disposition is correlated to adverse health outcomes: strong desires for revenge and greater willingness to act on these desires have been correlated with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and psychiatric morbidity.[19]

Proverbs

[edit]

The popular expression "revenge is a dish best served cold" suggests that revenge is more satisfying if enacted when unexpected or long-feared, inverting traditional civilized[20] revulsion toward "cold-blooded" violence.[21]

The idea's origin is obscure. The French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754–1838) has been credited with the saying, "La vengeance est un met que l'on doit manger froid" ["Revenge is a dish that must be eaten cold"], albeit without supporting detail.[22] The concept has been in the English language at least since the 1846 translation of the 1845 French novel Mathilde by Joseph Marie Eugène Sue: "la vengeance se mange très bien froide",[23] there italicized as if quoting a proverbial saying, and translated "revenge is very good eaten cold".[24] The phrase has been wrongly credited[25] to the novel Les Liaisons dangereuses (1782).

The phrase has also been credited to the Pashtuns of Afghanistan.[26]

Earlier speakers of English might use the set phrase "with a wanion" rather than the more modern standard "with a vengeance" to express intensity.[27]

A Japanese proverb states, "If you want revenge, then dig two graves". While this reference is frequently misunderstood by Western audiences, the Japanese reader understands that this proverb means that enactors of revenge must be more dedicated to killing their enemy than to surviving the ordeal themselves.[28]

In art

[edit]
Igagoe buyuden. This is an episode from a popular story of revenge – how the son of a murdered samurai tracked the killer over all Japan.

Revenge is a popular subject across many forms of art. Some examples include the painting Herodias' Revenge by Juan de Flandes and the operas Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro, both by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In Japanese art, revenge is a theme in various woodblock prints depicting the forty-seven rōnin by many well-known and influential artists, including Utagawa Kuniyoshi. The Chinese playwright Ji Junxiang used revenge as the central theme in his theatrical work The Orphan of Zhao;[29] it depicts more specifically familial revenge, which is placed in the context of Confucian morality and social hierarchical structure.[30]

In literature

[edit]

Revenge has been a popular literary theme historically and continues to play a role in contemporary works.[31] Examples of literature that feature revenge as a theme include the plays Hamlet and Othello by William Shakespeare, the novel The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and the short story "The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allan Poe. More modern examples include the novels Carrie by Stephen King, Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, and The Princess Bride by William Goldman. Although revenge is a theme in itself, it is also considered to be a genre.[32]

Revenge as a genre has been consistent with a variety of themes that have frequently appeared in different texts over the last few centuries. Such themes include but are not limited to: disguise, masking, sex, cannibalism, the grotesque, bodily fluids, power, violent murders, and secrecy.[33] Each theme is usually coupled with the concept of dramatic irony. Dramatic irony is a literary device in which the audience possesses knowledge unavailable to characters in a novel, play, or film.[34] Its purpose is to intensify the tragic events that are going to unfold by creating tension between the audience and the actions of the characters.[34]

The most common theme within the genre of revenge is the recurring violent murders that take place throughout the text, especially in the final act or scene. The root of the violence is usually derived from the characters' childhood development.[35]

The themes of masking and disguise have the ability to go hand in hand with each other. A character may employ disguise literally or metaphorically. A mask is the literal example of this theme; while pretending to be something one is not is considered to be the metaphoric example. Additional themes that may cause the protagonist and antagonist to develop a masked or disguised identity include sex, power, and even cannibalism. Examples of sex and power being used as themes can be seen in the novel Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, as well as the aforementioned drama, Titus Andronicus.[36]

On the internet

[edit]

The emergence of the internet has provided new ways of enacting revenge.[37] For example, customer revenge targets businesses and corporations with the intent to cause damage or harm.[38] In general, people tend to place more credence in online reviews rather than corporate communications.[37] With technology becoming more readily available, corporations and firms are more likely to experience damage caused by negative reviews posted online going viral. Recent studies indicate this type of consumer rage aimed at corporations is becoming more common, especially in Western societies.[39]

The rise of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube act as public platforms for exacting new forms of revenge.[37] Revenge porn involves the vengeful public dissemination of intimate pictures and videos of another person's sexual activity with the intent of creating widespread shame.[40] Participation in online revenge porn activities incites a sense of pleasure through the harm, embarrassment, and humiliation being inflicted on the victim. The allowance of anonymity on revenge porn sites encourages further incivility by empowering and encouraging this type of behavior.[41] In many instances, the original poster provides the victim's personal information, including links to social media accounts, furthering the harassment.[40] Online revenge porn's origins can be traced to 2010 when Hunter Moore created the first site, IsAnyoneUp, to share nude photos of his girlfriend.[41]

In animals

[edit]

Humans are not the only species known to take revenge. There are several species such as camels, elephants, fish, lions,[42] coots,[43] crows, and many species of primates (chimpanzees, macaques, baboons, etc.) that have been recognized to seek revenge. Primatologists Frans de Waal and Lesleigh Luttrell have conducted numerous studies that provide evidence of revenge in many species of primates. They observed chimpanzees and noticed patterns of revenge. For example, if chimpanzee A helped chimpanzee B defeat his opponent, chimpanzee C, then chimpanzee C would be more likely to help chimpanzee A's opponent in a later squabble. Chimpanzees are one of the most common species that show revenge due to their desire for dominance. Studies have also been performed on less cognitive species such as fish to demonstrate that not only intellectual animals execute revenge.[44] Studies of crows by Professor John Marzluff have also shown that some animals can carry "blood feuds" in similar ways to humans.[45] Using a "dangerous" mask to cover their face and trap, band, and then release crows, Marzluff observed that within two weeks, a significant percentage of crows encountered - 26%, to be exact - would "scold" the people wearing the dangerous mask, proving that crows pass information pertaining to feuds within their family units to spread awareness about dangers they may face.[46] This included crows not initially trapped by the mask-wearing researchers, seeing as some of the crows were un-banded. This was further proven three years after the initial study, as the percentage of "scolding" crows increased to 66% from the initial 26%.[45]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Revenge

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Revenge is the act of inflicting or punishment on an individual or group perceived to have committed a wrong, typically driven by a desire for requital or to restore a after an offense. This response emerges from an innate emotional drive, often automatic, that prioritizes retaliation over , functioning as a mechanism to deter future by signaling unwillingness to tolerate . Empirical research in reveals revenge's dual nature: it activates reward-related neural pathways, providing transient akin to hedonic satisfaction, yet frequently leads to prolonged rumination on the original , exacerbating distress rather than resolving it. Evolutionarily, this impulse likely persists because it served adaptive functions in ancestral environments, such as discouraging repeat offenses and enforcing reciprocity in social groups where formal institutions were absent, though modern contexts often render it maladaptive by perpetuating cycles of conflict. Unlike institutionalized , which operates through impartial rules to rehabilitate or proportionately penalize, revenge remains intensely personal, fueled by subjective outrage rather than objective standards, and risks escalation due to its emphasis on equivalence in suffering over societal restoration. underscore its near-universal presence, yet outcomes vary: while it may indirectly enhance or group deterrence in some scenarios, individual perpetrators often experience bittersweet results, with initial vindication overshadowed by sustained negative affect.

Definition and Etymology

Core Definition

Revenge is the act of inflicting harm or suffering on an individual or group perceived to have caused , typically as a direct retaliation for a , real or imagined, with the aim of restoring balance or exacting proportionality. This response differs from unprovoked by being inherently reactive, arising specifically from a sense of wrongdoing that demands reciprocity. Scholars characterize it as a form of requital, where the avenger seeks to return equivalent harm to signal resolve and potentially deter repetition of the offense. At its core, revenge encompasses both the desire and the execution of vengeful acts, often driven by emotions such as or , though it can manifest rationally as a calculated in social interactions. It is distinct from formal or systems, which involve impartial third-party enforcement, as revenge remains interpersonal and self-administered, frequently escalating conflicts if unchecked. Empirical studies indicate that while revenge may provide short-term satisfaction through neural reward pathways, it rarely yields long-term resolution and can perpetuate cycles of retaliation.

Historical Linguistic Roots

The English noun and verb "revenge" entered the language in the late 14th century, borrowed from revengier ("to avenge" or "to exact retribution"), which combined the intensive prefix re- with vengier, a form of vindicare ("to lay claim to, avenge, or punish"). This Latin vindicare derives from vindex ("champion, defender, or avenger"), itself a compound of vis or vim ("force" or "violence") and dicere ("to say" or "declare"), implying a forceful assertion of or against a wrongdoer. The term initially emphasized retaliation or self-vindication without the modern connotation of personal malice, reflecting Roman legal traditions where vindicta denoted the rod used in or the act of freeing a slave, extended metaphorically to liberating from through retribution. Deeper roots trace to Proto-Indo-European *kʷey-, reconstructed as meaning "to pay" or "to atone," which underlies concepts of compensation or penalty across descendant languages, including Latin vindico ("I avenge") and Greek poinē ("blood-price" or "penalty paid for "). This root highlights an ancient linguistic link between retribution and reciprocal exchange, evident in early Indo-European societies where vengeance served as a mechanism for restoring balance, as seen in Hittite kattawatar (related to and retaliation) and terms for wrath like mení. By the Middle English period (circa 1150–1500), "revenge" as a solidified, with the noun form attested by around 1525, often interchangeable with "avenge" in texts like Scottish chronicles, though "revenge" increasingly connoted private rather than public . Cognates in , such as Italian rivendicare ("to claim back" or "avenge") and Spanish venganza ("vengeance"), preserve the Latin core, while Germanic parallels like rächōn ("to avenge," from Proto-Germanic *raikjaną, "to extend" or "reach back") illustrate independent but conceptually similar evolutions for retaliation, underscoring how Indo-European branches developed distinct yet overlapping lexicons for harm's requital. These linguistic paths reflect not mere phonetic shifts but adaptations to cultural emphases on honor, , and reciprocity in pre-modern societies.

Evolutionary and Biological Underpinnings

Adaptive Role in Human Evolution

Revenge is posited by evolutionary psychologists as an that enhanced survival and in ancestral human environments by deterring exploitation and enforcing reciprocity among non-kin. In small-scale societies of hunter-gatherers, where repeated interactions were the norm, failing to retaliate against cheaters or aggressors risked repeated victimization, eroding an individual's and access to benefits like food sharing or . By imposing costs on transgressors, revenge signaled resolve and unwillingness to tolerate harm, thereby discouraging future attacks and stabilizing exchanges central to human sociality. This function aligns with ' theory of , where mechanisms for detecting and punishing —such as revenge—prevent the collapse of mutual aid systems that would otherwise favor selfish actors. Experimental evidence supports this: in economic games like the , human participants consistently engage in "altruistic punishment," inflicting costs on non-cooperators even when no personal gain accrues, which sustains cooperation levels far beyond what alone predicts. Such behavior, observed across diverse populations, implies an evolved cognitive module for retaliation that prioritizes long-term deterrence over immediate costs, as unchecked would have diminished fitness in environments reliant on group interdependence. Beyond pairwise reciprocity, revenge may have promoted group-level benefits by upholding norms against free-riding, as seen in ethnographic accounts of punitive raids among tribal societies that deterred raids from rivals and reinforced internal cohesion. However, its adaptive value is tempered by risks of escalation into vendettas, suggesting co-evolution with mechanisms calibrated to cues like offender or future utility, ensuring retaliation is deployed judiciously rather than indiscriminately. Neuroeconomic studies reinforce this, showing activation of reward centers during vengeful acts, which may have reinforced the behavior's execution in fitness-relevant contexts. Empirical models indicate that without such punitive adaptations, in large-scale human societies—emerging around 10,000 years ago—would have been untenable, underscoring revenge's role in scaling beyond kin ties.

Neurological and Physiological Mechanisms

studies, including (fMRI), have identified heightened activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) during scenarios prompting revenge, particularly in intergroup conflicts where retaliation against out-group members is considered. This activation correlates with increased revenge propensity, suggesting the mPFC integrates social and motivational drives to facilitate vengeful decisions. Conversely, greater recruitment of the (VLPFC) during experiences of has been shown to suppress subsequent revenge behaviors, indicating a regulatory role in overriding impulsive retaliation. Retaliatory aggression underlying revenge activates neural reward circuitry, akin to hedonic processing in other rewarding behaviors, with provocation shifting the balance toward involvement for anticipated in retribution. This reward anticipation may explain the motivational pull of revenge, as brain imaging reveals overlap with addiction-like pathways where grievances trigger dopamine-mediated reinforcement. Physiologically, revenge propensity is associated with elevated salivary oxytocin levels during intergroup conflict exposure, which modulates mPFC activity to heighten out-group retaliation tendencies while potentially reducing toward adversaries. Oxytocin, traditionally linked to bonding, paradoxically promotes in competitive or threat contexts, as evidenced by its correlation with stronger vengeful motivations in controlled experimental settings. Stress-responsive hormones like may amplify this through feedback loops exacerbating aggressive states, though direct causation in revenge remains under investigation via endocrine assays.

Psychological Mechanisms

Emotional Triggers and Cognitive Processes

Revenge is frequently triggered by intense negative emotions, particularly arising from perceived interpersonal harm, , or violation of social norms. Studies indicate that provocation activates neural pathways associated with hedonic reward, shifting cognitive processing toward retaliatory impulses rather than restraint, as evidenced by increased activity in brain regions like the ventral striatum during anticipated vengeance. In individualistic cultures, predominates as the emotional driver, often stemming from appraisals of intentional or personal affront, whereas in collectivist contexts, emotions like or —linked to threats to social standing—more strongly motivate vengeful responses. These triggers are evolutionarily conserved, manifesting as an automatic, immediate to restore equity or deter future exploitation, with empirical data from surveys confirming their universality across human societies. Cognitively, vengeful behavior involves rapid appraisal processes that evaluate the offender's intent, the severity of the transgression, and proportionality of response, often biased toward hostile attributions that amplify perceived malice. Rumination plays a central role, sustaining emotional through repetitive mental rehearsal of the offense, which depletes self-regulatory resources and heightens aggression proneness via prefrontal cortex engagement, as shown in studies linking angry rumination to medial prefrontal activity and displaced . This process includes cognitive distortions, such as tunnel vision on the wrongdoer's culpability or minimization of alternative explanations, fostering ideations of retaliation that blend emotional with strategic deterrence calculations—implicitly weighing costs to signal resolve and prevent recurrence. Unlike deliberative , which requires effortful , revenge operates more automatically through evolved systems prioritizing reciprocity over , though individual differences in executive control can modulate escalation. Empirical models posit these mechanisms as adaptive for maintaining equilibria in ancestral environments, where unchecked exploitation threatened , yet they can perpetuate cycles when unchecked by modern inhibitory norms.

Individual Traits Predisposing to Vengeance

Vengefulness, as a dispositional tendency to seek retribution for perceived wrongs, correlates strongly with specific personality traits within the Big Five model. Individuals scoring high in neuroticism—characterized by emotional instability, anxiety, and proneness to negative affect—are more likely to ruminate on offenses and endorse vengeful attitudes, as evidenced by cross-sectional studies linking this trait to reduced and heightened rumination. Conversely, low agreeableness, which reflects antagonism, low empathy, and competitiveness, predicts greater vengefulness by fostering interpersonal conflicts and a reluctance to overlook slights. Low conscientiousness, involving and poor , further exacerbates this predisposition by impairing inhibition of aggressive impulses following provocation. The Dark Triad traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—exhibit robust associations with revenge-seeking behaviors, particularly in relational contexts. Narcissists, hypersensitive to ego threats, pursue vengeance to restore self-esteem after perceived humiliations, often through indirect or prolonged retaliation. Machiavellians employ calculated manipulation for payback, viewing revenge as a strategic tool for dominance. Psychopathic individuals, marked by callousness and thrill-seeking, derive pleasure from others' suffering and exhibit uninhibited vengeful acts, including in romantic betrayals where infidelity prompts disproportionate reprisals. These traits collectively predict infidelity-related revenge and lower forgiveness via heightened anger rumination. Trait and hostility serve as proximal predictors, amplifying vengeful tendencies independent of broader personality structures; chronic anger rumination sustains grudges, while hostility biases attributions toward malice in others' actions. Sadism, the enjoyment of inflicting pain, uniquely motivates pursuit of revenge for its hedonic payoff, distinguishing it from purely restorative motives. Power motivation and status-seeking also underpin vengefulness, as those prioritizing dominance interpret offenses as threats to hierarchy and respond punitively to reassert control. These traits interact dynamically; for instance, Dark Triad elevations compound Big Five vulnerabilities, yielding cycles of aggression in social and intimate domains. Empirical measures, such as the Vengeful Personality Questionnaire, consistently validate these links across diverse samples, underscoring their causal role in predisposing individuals to retaliatory behaviors over prosocial resolutions.

Historical and Cultural Manifestations

Revenge in Ancient Societies

In ancient , the , inscribed circa 1750 BCE, formalized retaliatory justice to curb unchecked personal vengeance and mitigate cycles of escalating violence among kin groups. This Babylonian legal corpus, comprising 282 laws, prescribed punishments mirroring the offense—such as the loss of an eye for blinding another or a tooth for knocking out another's—under the principle of lex talionis, thereby channeling revenge into state-sanctioned equity rather than indefinite feuds. positioned these edicts as divinely ordained to "destroy the wicked and the evil-doers," reflecting a causal shift from tribal vendettas to codified proportionality that preserved in a polycentric urban landscape prone to disputes over property, honor, and . Among the ancient , Mosaic law in the integrated limited retaliation while prohibiting private revenge, as articulated in Exodus 21:23-25, which mandated "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" to ensure measured restitution administered by judges rather than individuals. Deuteronomy 32:35 further reserved ultimate vengeance to divine authority—"Vengeance is mine, and recompense"—explicitly forbidding personal grudges or reprisals (:18), a framework designed to interrupt hereditary blood feuds observed in neighboring Semitic cultures by subordinating human impulses to communal and theocratic oversight. This approach emphasized empirical deterrence through equivalence, evidenced in narratives like , where collective retribution against Midianites followed specific provocations, yet personal vendettas, such as Joab's unauthorized killing in 2 Samuel 3:26-29, incurred curses and were critiqued as deviations from covenantal norms. In ancient Greece, blood feuds (eis angelia) dominated pre-classical kinship-based societies, perpetuating intergenerational vengeance for homicide or dishonor, as mythologized by the daimon Alastor, the relentless spirit enforcing familial curses across progeny for ancestral crimes. Homeric epics, such as the Iliad (circa 8th century BCE), depict warriors like Achilles pursuing personal reprisals—avenging Patroclus by slaying Hector—while the Oresteia of Aeschylus (458 BCE) dramatizes the Atreid cycle, from Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia sparking Clytemnestra's matricide-avenging Orestes, resolved only by Athena's Areopagus court institutionalizing trial over vendetta. These patterns, rooted in decentralized poleis lacking unified enforcement until Solon's reforms (circa 594 BCE), highlight how unchecked revenge fueled endemic instability, with feuds claiming hundreds in regions like Crete persisting into later eras. Roman law under the Twelve Tables (451-450 BCE) adopted lex talionis to regulate patrician-plebeian tensions, permitting direct retaliation—fracture for fracture—unless commuted via poena culpei fines, evolving from Etruscan and Italic traditions of tribal reprisal toward praetorian edicts favoring pecuniary satisfaction by the 3rd century BCE. This system pragmatically limited vendettas in an expanding republic, where family honor (pietas) demanded vengeance for slights but yielded to vindicta publica state prosecutions, as seen in Cicero's defenses against private feuds; empirical records from forensic oratory indicate such measures reduced, yet did not eradicate, elite cycles like those in the Gracchi era.

Cross-Cultural Variations and Norms

In honor cultures, prevalent in regions such as the , the Mediterranean, and parts of the , retaliation is often viewed as a to restore personal or familial following insults or harms, with showing higher endorsement of aggressive responses compared to dignity cultures. Dignity cultures, common in and the contemporary urban West, prioritize internal self-worth and institutional recourse over personal vengeance, leading to lower tolerance for and greater preference for or legal remedies. For instance, studies of U.S. regional differences indicate that individuals in honor-endorsing states exhibit stronger physiological and behavioral to perceived slights, correlating with elevated rates tied to reputational disputes. Collectivist societies, such as those in and parts of , tend to emphasize altruistic revenge—avenging harm to the group or shared shame—over individual grudges, though meta-analytic reviews reveal they are often more forgiving in interpersonal conflicts than individualist counterparts due to relational harmony norms. In contrast, individualist cultures like those in the U.S. and show higher propensities for personal retaliation, influenced by values of autonomy and direct justice, with cultural dimensions such as explaining up to 20-30% of variance in revenge-forgiveness patterns across nations. Experimental data from economic games further demonstrate that participants from high-revenge-norm countries retaliate more frequently in simulated fouls, as observed in international soccer matches where national cultural emphasis on vengeance predicts aggressive counteractions. Blood feuds, institutionalized kin-group vengeance, persist in tribal contexts like , , and Pashtun areas of and Pakistan, where anthropological coding of 186 societies identifies them as legitimate self-redress mechanisms tied to marriage alliances and weak central authority, occurring in 28% of sampled uncentralized polities. These feuds enforce norms through cycles of retaliation, often moderated by mediators but escalating without them, contrasting with state-monopolized in modern societies; for example, in pre-Yugoslav , feuding accounted for sustained inter-clan violence until formal supplanted customary revenge around 1945. Cross-societal surveys of norm enforcement reveal substantial variation, with revenge comprising 15-40% of punishment forms in decentralized groups versus near-zero reliance in centralized ones, underscoring how ecological pressures like amplify vengeful equilibria. Beliefs in karmic or reincarnative , stronger in Hindu-influenced Asian cultures, empirically reduce vengeful impulses by fostering expectations of cosmic retribution, as shown in comparative surveys across 20+ nations.

Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions

Justifications for Retributive Action

Retributivists maintain that retributive action is morally required because culpable wrongdoers deserve to suffer harm proportional to the wrong they inflicted, thereby restoring balance disrupted by their violation of or norms. This desert-based rationale holds that is intrinsically justified by the offender's guilt, not by its potential to deter future crimes or rehabilitate, as failure to impose deserved would undermine the principle that actions have inherent weights. Immanuel Kant articulated a foundational argument for retribution through the categorical imperative, asserting that rational agents must treat humanity as an end in itself and that crimes forfeit the offender's claim to equal treatment, necessitating to reestablish juridical equality via the ius talionis—an , scaled to the offense's gravity. For Kant, even if a were dissolving, the last murderer in custody must be executed to satisfy this retributive duty, as sparing them would make complicit in . This view emphasizes retribution's deontological necessity: annuls the wrongdoer's unlawful will by subjecting them to the same form of they imposed, preserving the moral order's integrity regardless of consequential outcomes. G.W.F. Hegel extended retributivism by conceiving punishment as the logical negation of crime within a dialectical framework, where the offender's act inverts the rightful order, and retribution "annuls" this inversion by reinstating the universal will through proportionate counter-force. Unlike mere vengeance, Hegelian retribution expresses the community's rational recognition of the crime's nullity, transforming the abstract wrong into concrete restoration; for instance, theft is annulled not just by restitution but by the thief's subjection to deprivation mirroring their gain's scale. This theory posits retribution as essential to ethical life (Sittlichkeit), ensuring individual actions align with communal norms without reducing punishment to instrumental utility. Further arguments invoke the intrinsic moral value of proportionality: deserved rectifies the offender's under-desert relative to victims, satisfying intuitive demands for fairness that consequentialist alternatives fail to address, such as punishing innocents for greater social good. Empirical intuitions supporting this include widespread endorsement of "just deserts" in experiments, where participants favor retributive responses over purely forward-looking ones, suggesting an evolved or reasoned basis for holding wrongdoers accountable to prevent normative erosion. Critics from utilitarian traditions, however, contend these justifications overlook net harms, but retributivists counter that desert trumps utility to avoid .

Critiques from Moral and Utilitarian Standpoints

Deontological moral frameworks critique revenge as a violation of universal duties and rational principles, prioritizing impartial justice over personal vendettas driven by emotion. argued that private vengeance exceeds permissible , representing an unauthorized overreach that undermines and the state's monopoly on retribution, thereby eroding moral order. Such acts treat the wrongdoer instrumentally, as a conduit for the avenger's , contravening the categorical imperative's demand to respect persons as ends rather than means to subjective satisfaction. Utilitarian critiques emphasize revenge's net disutility, as it frequently escalates conflicts into protracted cycles of harm, diminishing aggregate happiness without reliably deterring future offenses. conceptualized punishment as a calculated instrument for prevention and , dismissing vengeful impulses as extraneous evils that inflict unnecessary pain disproportionate to societal benefits. similarly denigrated the urge for revenge as a rudimentary "animal desire" rooted in , subordinate to refined mechanisms that advance collective welfare through deterrence and reform rather than reciprocal injury. These perspectives hold that state-administered sanctions, calibrated for utility, outperform private retaliation by minimizing errors, proportionality risks, and retaliatory spirals.

Distinction from Formal Justice Systems

Formal justice systems, as institutionalized mechanisms for resolving disputes and punishing offenses, differ fundamentally from revenge in their structure, motivations, and outcomes. Revenge constitutes a private, individualized act of retaliation against a perceived wrongdoer, typically motivated by personal emotions such as , , or a desire for equivalence in suffering, without adherence to predefined rules or oversight. In contrast, formal systems—embodied in courts, legislatures, and —prioritize impartial adjudication through , evidence-based determinations, and punishments scaled to statutory guidelines, seeking not personal but restoration of social equilibrium and deterrence of future harms. A core divergence lies in legitimacy and breadth of acceptance: revenge satisfies the avenger and perhaps a narrow circle but risks rejection by broader society due to its subjective and potentially arbitrary nature, whereas formal derives from via and institutions, ensuring punishments are viewed as proportionate and defensible by diverse stakeholders. This institutional framework emerged historically to supplant private vengeance, as theorized in traditions where individuals cede retaliatory rights to the state to avert endless feuds and maintain order—evident in transitions from tribal blood feuds to codified in ancient codes like Hammurabi's (circa 1750 BCE), which limited private reprisals. Empirical patterns support this: societies with weak formal systems, such as in parts of modern Albania's Kanun traditions, exhibit persistent cycles of vendetta killings, with over 3,000 deaths attributed to blood feuds since 1990, underscoring how unchecked revenge escalates beyond initial grievances. While both involve retribution—holding wrongdoers accountable for harms inflicted—formal distinguishes itself by decoupling from raw , emphasizing rational proportionality over "getting even." Retributive theories within legal philosophy, such as just deserts, justify penalties as morally required responses to , not vengeful impulses, thereby avoiding excesses like disproportionate harm seen in revenge scenarios. Critics, including some utilitarian scholars, contend that even state retribution masks veiled revenge under procedural veneer, yet this overlooks verifiable safeguards: randomized trials in sentencing reforms, such as those implemented in U.S. federal courts post-1984 Sentencing Reform Act, demonstrate reduced disparities and through guidelines, outcomes unattainable in personal vendettas. Ultimately, formal systems mitigate risks inherent to revenge, including error-prone judgments without standards and perpetual retaliation chains, fostering stability over individual satisfaction.

Vigilantism, Cycles of Violence, and Modern Policy Debates

Vigilantism constitutes extralegal enforcement of perceived , frequently driven by desires for retribution against offenses such as or moral violations, bypassing formal legal channels. Empirical analyses indicate that vigilante actions often arise from righteous and retaliatory impulses triggered by breaches of communal norms, with employed in a majority of documented cases across Western contexts where corporal punishment has been abolished. Outcomes of vigilantism reveal mixed effects; while some instances align with individual intuitions activating regions associated with justified , particularly when congruent with personal beliefs, broader societal impacts include disproportionate harm to marginalized groups through misdirected or excessive . Revenge-motivated vigilantism contributes to cycles of violence by fostering retaliatory escalations, as initial acts of self-justice provoke counter-responses, perpetuating feuds and intergroup conflicts. Research on urban youth demonstrates that revenge goals, rooted in street codes responding to perceived threats, sustain patterns of violent retaliation, amplifying overall aggression rather than resolving underlying grievances. This dynamic mirrors broader predictors, where experiences of violent correlate with heightened revenge desires, which in turn motivate further , creating feedback loops evident in both individual forensic cases and intergroup hostilities. Historical and contemporary studies confirm that such cycles intensify when denial of perceived entitlements—such as security or honor—triggers vengeful without institutional , leading to sustained escalation over . Modern policy debates surrounding vigilantism and revenge center on balancing retributive impulses with risks of escalation, particularly in areas like self-defense statutes and capital punishment. In the United States, where vigilantism has historical precedents tied to frontier justice and distrust of centralized authority, policies such as "stand your ground" laws have sparked contention over whether they empower legitimate defense or invite vengeful overreach, with empirical links to increased homicide rates in adopting states. Proponents of stricter retributive measures, including the death penalty, argue they channel public vengeance to deter crime amid governmental distrust, yet data show correlations with vigilantism support rather than proven cycle-breaking efficacy, as retributive executions may reinforce narratives of justified retaliation. Counterarguments emphasize restorative justice frameworks to interrupt revenge cycles, drawing from post-conflict analyses where unchecked vigilantism prolongs violence; however, implementation faces resistance in high-crime contexts prioritizing deterrence, highlighting tensions between empirical escalation risks and demands for swift punishment. These debates underscore causal realities: policies tolerating extralegal retribution often amplify violence through reciprocal dynamics, whereas robust legal monopolies on force correlate with reduced vigilantism, though imperfect enforcement can perpetuate underlying incentives for revenge.

Representations and Impacts in Culture

In Literature and Mythology

In ancient Greek literature, revenge motifs frequently underscore the perils of unchecked vendetta, portraying it as a force that perpetuates cycles of violence until supplanted by communal justice. In Homer's Iliad (c. 8th century BCE), Achilles slays Hector in retribution for the death of his companion Patroclus, desecrating the body in a display of excessive wrath that alienates allies and invites divine intervention, highlighting revenge's isolating consequences. Similarly, Odysseus in the Odyssey exacts vengeance on the suitors who besieged his household during his absence, slaughtering over 100 men in a calculated purge that restores order but exemplifies the heroic code's emphasis on personal honor over restraint. Aeschylus's trilogy (458 BCE) systematizes this theme through the House of Atreus's intergenerational feuds: murders to avenge their daughter Iphigenia's sacrifice at , inciting to kill her in reprisal, which summons the (Furies) to hound him for ; resolution comes via Athena's trial, institutionalizing retribution as civic law rather than private blood debt. Euripides's (431 BCE) inverts heroic norms by centering female agency, as the titular sorceress slays her own children and Jason's new bride to punish his infidelity, embodying barbarian excess against Greek ideals of and revealing revenge's capacity for self-destruction. These works reflect Athenian where vengeance was culturally valorized yet philosophically critiqued for eroding social stability, as evidenced in contemporary forensic speeches invoking it as a duty while warning of escalation. In later Western literature, Shakespeare's (c. 1600) adapts the genre—drawing from Senecan models rooted in Greek precedents—to probe its psychological toll. delays avenging his father's murder by uncle , tormented by moral qualms and feigned madness, culminating in a that claims multiple lives and underscores hesitation's tragic irony amid Denmark's corrupt court. This motif persists in 19th-century novels like Alexandre Dumas's (1844), where , falsely imprisoned for 14 years, methodically ruins his betrayers through amassed wealth and guile, framing revenge as a meticulously engineered restoration of personal agency against institutional . Across these traditions, literary depictions consistently evidence revenge's dual portrayal: as a imperative for honor, yet a catalyst for disproportionate harm, informed by cultural shifts from tribal reciprocity to rational .

In Contemporary Media and Real-World Examples

The ABC television series Revenge (2011–2015) centers on Emily Thorne, who assumes a new identity to orchestrate retribution against affluent Hamptons residents responsible for framing her father for terrorism, leading to his imprisonment and death. The narrative, spanning four seasons and 89 episodes, explores the psychological toll and unintended consequences of her elaborate schemes, including alliances, betrayals, and escalating violence among the targets. While the show drew 6.5 million viewers for its premiere on September 21, 2011, viewership declined to 3.4 million by the 2015 finale, reflecting mixed critical reception on its shift from suspense to melodrama. In cinema, the franchise (2014–2023) exemplifies revenge through its protagonist's lethal pursuit following the killing of his dog—a posthumous from his deceased —and of his car by Russian mobsters. The series, grossing over $1 billion across four films, adheres to revenge tropes like a grieving confronting a criminal , yet amplifies violence with balletic gunfights and motifs of inescapable cycles, as John Wick's actions provoke broader retaliation from a global assassin network. Critics note its departure from typical redemption arcs, portraying retribution as perpetuating isolation rather than resolution. Real-world instances underscore revenge's role in contemporary violence, with empirical data linking it to up to 20% of homicides and 60% of school shootings, often stemming from perceived interpersonal slights or . For example, the 1999 Columbine High School shooting involved perpetrators citing revenge against peers for years of , resulting in 13 deaths before their suicides on April 20, 1999; forensic analyses confirm such motives recur in similar incidents. In urban settings, gang-related killings frequently form revenge cycles, as documented in studies of where retaliatory homicides accounted for 35% of gang deaths between 2003 and 2009, perpetuating intergenerational violence. These cases highlight causal patterns where initial acts provoke disproportionate responses, contrasting media depictions that often frame revenge as .

Empirical Research on Effects

Evidence of Deterrence and Protective Benefits

Empirical research indicates that revenge can exert a deterrent effect by imposing costs on offenders, thereby discouraging repetition of harmful actions. In settings, acts of retaliation signal potential future , reducing the likelihood of subsequent ; for instance, experimental paradigms demonstrate that observed alters participants' to avoid similar violations, supporting a direct deterrence mechanism. Indirectly, revenge enhances reputational effects, where publicized retaliation establishes norms of intolerance toward exploitation, deterring third parties from initiating harm within social groups. Neurological evidence reinforces this: functional MRI studies show activation in the brain's reward centers, such as the , when individuals learn that an offender has been punished, which bolsters the perceived credibility and thus the deterrent value of vengeful responses. From an evolutionary standpoint, revenge likely evolved to protect against recurrent exploitation in ancestral environments, where retaliation in small coalitions prevented ongoing threats and promoted cooperative equilibria. analogs, including group retaliation, illustrate how costly deters dominance hierarchies that could lead to repeated victimization. Human data further substantiates protective benefits, with revenge killings serving to safeguard and family lineages by warding off repeat offenders and signaling resolve to potential aggressors. These effects extend to restoring victims' and power, countering the helplessness induced by initial harm and thereby reducing vulnerability to further attacks. Cross-species observations align with this, as retaliatory behaviors in non-human animals—such as birds and imposing costs on aggressors—yield reformed conduct, suggesting deterrence as an adaptive function conserved across taxa. However, while laboratory experiments consistently show short-term deterrent impacts, real-world applications reveal variability, with some field studies indicating that the motive for revenge often prioritizes retribution over pure deterrence, though both contribute to overall protective outcomes.

Costs, Escalation Risks, and Long-Term Outcomes

Revenge incurs substantial psychological costs for the avenger, often yielding short-term satisfaction through activation of reward centers in the but failing to deliver anticipated long-term hedonic benefits due to errors, where individuals overestimate the pleasure derived from retaliation. Longitudinal research indicates that reductions in revenge motivations predict higher , more positive moods, and fewer negative emotions over time, suggesting that sustained vengeful pursuits exacerbate rumination and emotional distress rather than resolving it. Escalation risks arise from revenge's tendency to provoke reciprocal retaliation, transforming isolated grievances into protracted cycles of that amplify harm beyond the initial offense. Empirical analyses link revenge motives to significant portions of violent incidents, including up to 20% of homicides and 60% of school shootings, where initial acts of retribution trigger defensive or punitive responses from targets or their allies, thereby expanding conflict scope and intensity. In social and intergroup contexts, this dynamic fosters mutual deterrence failures, as each retaliatory episode reinforces perceived threats and undermines opportunities, leading to heavier tactics such as threats or further . Long-term outcomes of revenge typically involve diminished and unresolved conflict, as vengeful actions prolong dwelling on transgressions, hinder processes, and sustain cycles of grievance without achieving genuine closure or restoration. Studies demonstrate that revenge-seeking distracts from underlying but ultimately entrenches , reducing adaptive and interpersonal trust over extended periods, with avengers reporting persistent unhappiness compared to those who forgo retaliation. In broader societal terms, unchecked revenge contributes to enduring , as seen in retaliatory patterns that perpetuate intergroup hostilities and elevate overall levels without yielding proportional protective gains.

Key Studies from 2020 Onward

A study using examined neural responses to revenge opportunities, finding that anger-motivated states enhanced reward positivity (RewP) amplitudes associated with anticipated retaliation, indicating a hedonic response akin to reward processing during aggravation outcomes. This suggests revenge activates approach-motivated neural pathways, potentially reinforcing vengeful behavior through perceived gains. In 2021, research applying frameworks to demonstrated that highly aggressive individuals often prefer delayed, larger retaliatory acts over immediate smaller ones, with experimental tasks showing willingness to forgo short-term revenge for amplified future harm. These findings imply strategic escalation in revenge motives among certain dispositions, prioritizing maximal impact over instant gratification. A experiment revealed that extrinsic rewards, such as monetary compensation post-provocation, reduced subsequent revenge desires by fulfilling satisfaction needs independently of retaliation, with participants reporting lower rumination on vengeance when compensated. This highlights compensatory mechanisms that can mitigate revenge without direct , though effects varied by provocation severity. The 2024 analysis of adolescent peer dynamics found peer victimization positively predicted revenge intentions, partially mediated by , based on surveys of over 1,000 Chinese students, underscoring how interpretive errors amplify retaliatory cycles in social contexts. More recent 2025 work on childhood survivors indicated that desire for revenge, when mediated by enhanced self-concept clarity, correlated with reduced distress symptoms and increased in cases of moderate perceived , drawing from longitudinal data on 200+ participants. Conversely, high injustice perceptions amplified negative outcomes, suggesting context-dependent psychological benefits versus risks in vengeful ideation.

References

  1. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/spc3.12554
  2. https://tnsr.org/2017/11/blunt-not-heart-enrage-psychology-revenge-deterrence/
  3. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-complicated-psychology-of-revenge
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4927037/
  5. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge
  6. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/revenge-evolution/
  7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-of-the-self/201402/dont-confuse-revenge-with-justice-five-key-differences
  8. https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/mind/2019/psychology-of-revenge
  9. https://source.washu.edu/2016/06/make-no-mistake-revenge-bittersweet-study-confirms/
  10. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00332941241313032
  11. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-support/201707/the-psychology-revenge-and-vengeful-people
  12. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/transcending-the-past/202311/revenge-is-rarely-sweet
  13. https://www.etymonline.com/word/revenge
  14. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revenge
  15. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/4-angers-history-%25CE%25BA%25CF%258C%25CF%2584%25CE%25BF%25CF%2582-and-etymology/
  16. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/revenge_n
  17. https://wordpandit.com/wpt_vocabulary/the-origin-of-vengeance-from-past-to-present/
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/putting-revenge-and-forgiveness-in-an-evolutionary-context/1C8FEF3D35D85C012A233F20ECA646CB
  19. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11805825/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7643382/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7058385/
  23. https://elifesciences.org/articles/52014
  24. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-harm-done/201811/the-neuroscience-revenge
  25. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/behavioral-addiction-model-of-revenge-violence-and-gun-abuse/5B1B1C6064F87A9B9B5D375537868B70
  26. https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/hormones
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18578600/
  28. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-025-07021-w
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.751336/full
  30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211191/
  31. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=esi_pubs
  32. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/McCullough-Dispositional_Vengefulness_Correlates.pdf
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917305524
  34. http://www.craiganderson.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/12BA.pdf
  35. https://zitalucacsatho.medium.com/the-psychology-of-revenge-a-complex-and-multifaceted-human-phenomenon-7d2c5fdca95a
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8304795/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915002524
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886923002854
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321914630_Personality_correlates_of_revenge-seeking_Multidimensional_links_to_physical_aggression_impulsivity_and_aggressive_pleasure
  40. https://news.vcu.edu/article/What_leads_certain_people_to_seek_vengeance_Sadism_according
  41. https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2023/09/28/4-reasons-psychopaths-seek-revenge-more-than-the-rest-of-us/
  42. https://www.worldhistory.org/Code_of_Hammurabi/
  43. https://ancientlevant.com/blogs/news/the-hammurabi-code
  44. https://www.gotquestions.org/law-of-retribution.html
  45. https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/haazinu/vengeance/
  46. https://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Alastor.html
  47. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/69344/69344-h/69344-h.htm
  48. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=lu_law_review
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8096119/
  50. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-75089-006
  51. https://toddkashdan.substack.com/p/honor-the-outdated-virtue
  52. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1480&context=etd
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268124001860
  54. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/106939719202600103
  55. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/cultures/ef05/documents/002
  56. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2023.0034
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsp.2933
  58. https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/jpe/article/id/3544/
  59. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-024-00753-w
  60. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/how-can-punishment-be-justified-on-kants-retributivism/
  61. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/kant-on-the-role-of-the-retributive-outlook-in-moral-and-political-life/F8D05808CD4C15BF0A0A2A15B1ACB2C2
  62. https://philpapers.org/rec/ANDACA-5
  63. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3186131
  64. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=facpubs
  65. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=faculty-articles
  66. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/private-revenge-and-its-relation-to-punishment/C33987EE380FAD59AF0261C61FB1CB79
  67. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-9461-4_6
  68. https://armchairopinions.org/is-vengeance-ever-justifiable/
  69. https://www.uniwriter.ai/philosophy/jeremy-benthams-view-on-crime-and-punishment/
  70. https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jbs/article/id/218/
  71. https://iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/
  72. https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill5.htm
  73. http://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/m7/part1.asp
  74. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=djclpp_sidebar
  75. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
  76. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=law_faculty_scholarship
  77. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1742&context=faculty_scholarship
  78. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/47954/1/Gerber_Jackson_Retribution_as_revenge_2013.pdf
  79. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477370819887518
  80. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%253A2862004/view
  81. https://www.apa.org/topics/gun-violence-crime/vigilantism
  82. https://csde.washington.edu/?nltr=NzY2OzU1MjI7aHR0cHM6Ly9hYmNuZXdzLmdvLmNvbS9VUy92aWdpbGFudGUtdmlvbGVuY2UtZGlzcHJvcG9ydGlvbmF0ZWx5LWhhcm1zLW1hcmdpbmFsaXplZC1jb21tdW5pdGllcy1yZXNlYXJjaGVycy9zdG9yeT9pZD05OTQyOTk5ODs7NzE3NTE0ZGJlOGZjYmRjMmQ5NjJlYWQwYjhhYTY2ODE%253D
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5831555/
  84. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=phil_fac
  85. https://theconversation.com/vigilantism-again-in-the-news-is-an-american-tradition-141849
  86. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0023921600012846/type/journal_article
  87. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1113108/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  88. https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/Chapter-33-Handbook.pdf
  89. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414020957692
  90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv7h0vqp
  91. https://www.cram.com/essay/The-Theme-Of-Revenge-In-Medea-And/FKTCKJFSZ7BWQ
  92. https://psyart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Dana-TorThe-Oresteia-and-Revenge-1.pdf
  93. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/vengeance-medea
  94. https://www.academia.edu/28361076/The_ideology_of_revenge_in_ancient_Greek_culture_a_study_of_ancient_Athenian_revenge_ethics
  95. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/hamlet/themes/religion-honor-and-revenge
  96. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/14/top-10-books-about-revenge
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34747096_%27The_ideology_of_revenge_in_ancient_Greek_culture_a_study_of_ancient_Athenian_revenge_ethics%27
  98. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837642/
  99. https://ew.com/recap/revenge-recap-abc-truth/
  100. https://dailyillini.com/buzz-stories/2024/10/24/column-john-wick-stands-as-a-fabulously-violent-revenge-story/
  101. https://theconversation.com/how-the-john-wick-franchise-fits-into-the-bloody-tradition-of-the-revenge-film-genre-203136
  102. https://drpauldobransky.substack.com/p/the-ptsd-psychology-of-john-wick
  103. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-the-hidden-upsides-of-revenge
  104. https://crimereads.com/revenge-and-capitalism-in-popular-media/
  105. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1099236
  106. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4242077/
  108. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2019.1681351
  109. https://www.pittcorelab.com/uploads/1/1/5/5/115561629/paradox_of_revenge_10.pdf
  110. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-01057-005
  111. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/escalation
  112. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-destructive-anger/202311/seeking-revenge-its-causes-impact-and-challenge
  113. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-95015-001
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35762499/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10812118/
  116. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10560-025-01029-7
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.