What makes displaced revenge taste sweet: Retributing displaced responsibility or sending a message to the original perpetrator?

Abstract

The present research investigates the psychological dynamics underlying displaced revenge. We examine (1) the effect of entitativity on displaced revenge tendencies, including potential mediators of this effect, and (2) the conditions under which taking displaced revenge is satisfying for avengers. In three studies, we show that (a) perpetrator group entitativity predicts the tendency to take displaced revenge via perceptions that the vengeful action is effective in delivering a message to the original perpetrator, (b) that displaced revenge is satisfying when the group continues to exist in its original form, but not when the perpetrator has left the group or when the group has dissolved, and (c) that displaced revenge is most satisfying when both the original perpetrator and the target of revenge understand why revenge has been taken. These findings imply that sending a message to the original perpetrator is an important aspect of the psychological dynamics underlying displaced revenge.

Why we harm the organization for a perpetrator's actions: The roles of unforgiveness, group betrayal, and group embodiment in displaced revenge

“…Our findings extend the literature on displaced revenge (Sjöström et al, 2018;Strenstrom et al, 2008) in several ways. First, they show that group-directed displaced revenge occurs in an ingroup context.…”

“…Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 Group Embodiment (low vs. high) × 2 Offender Status (boss vs. co‐worker) between‐subjects design. We instructed participants to imagine that they were the victim of a workplace transgression (loosely based on Sjostrom et al., 2018) that resulted in severe negative personal consequences (e.g., public humiliation; Appendix ). We held unforgiveness towards the offender constant in all conditions by stating that the victim ‘did not forgive and viewed the offender's behaviour as inexcusable’.…”

Victims need more than power: Empowerment and moral change independently predict victims’ satisfaction and willingness to reconcile.

“…This finding has now been replicated in a number of studies conducted in different contexts, with different methodological approaches, and different types of offender feedback (e.g., Funk et al, 2014; Gollwitzer et al, 2014; Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009; Sjöström et al, 2018; Sjöström & Gollwitzer, 2015). Together, these studies demonstrate that punishment followed by offender feedback is particularly beneficial for victims when victims perceive that punishment effected a “moral change” in the offender, that is a positive change in the offender’s moral attitude toward their wrongdoing (Funk et al, 2014).…”

Permitting immoral behaviour: A generalized compensation belief hypothesis

“…Existing findings have shown that victims of previous injustice or mistreatment tend to pay the same act forward, hurting innocent people who were not involved in the initial interaction (e.g. Gray et al, 2014; Strang et al, 2016), and ‘displaced revenge’ towards an innocent person can be especially satisfying when the transgressor and the displaced target belong to a group that is perceived as highly entitative (Sjöström & Gollwitzer, 2015; Sjöström et al, 2018). Our studies systematically examined how observers morally evaluate a person's act of paying forward the previous mistreatment, a moral judgement perspective that has not received enough attention in previous research.…”