How Could It Be So Wrong When It Feels So Right? Revenge, Forgiveness, and Human Nature Michael E. McCullough University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida

Forgiveness in the Population (Poloma & Gallup, 1991) “Which do you usually do when you feel that someone has deliberately done something wrong to you?” Try to Forgive48% Try to Overlook It45% Hold Onto Resentment14% Try to Get Even 8%

Last Time in the Previous Month You Were Really Angry (GSS, 1996)

What About Serious Transgressions? (Time Survey; April 5, 1999) Would you forgive someone who: % Forgive % Not Forgive Told lies about you 7324 Stole money from you 6731 Slapped/punched you in the face 6432 Held you up with a gun 4254 Murdered someone in your community 3359 Raped you (women only) 2273 Raped a member of your family 1977 Murdered your child 1581

Kosovar Albanians’ Feelings of Revenge Against Serbs, 1999 Cardozo et al., JAMA, 2000

Revenge as Pervasive Cause and Effect in Human Behavior  Desire for Revenge as a Pervasive Cause –Driver Aggression –Arson –Workplace Aggression –Handgun Ownership And Use –Bullying and School Violence  Desire for Revenge as a Pervasive Effect –Sexual Abuse –Murdered Love One –Injustice in the Workplace

“Good Natured”, Demonic Males Or Both?

How Should We Think About the Relationship Between Forgiveness and Revenge?  Mirror Opposites?  Disease and Cure (psychiatric metaphor)?  Separate problem-solving modules?

Perhaps Revenge and Forgiveness Are Answers to Different Questions  Different if/then rules may govern the perceived appropriateness of forgiveness and revenge  Forgiveness: Close/interdependent relationships, relatively mild transgressions –Fosters inclusive fitness through protection of kinship relations and cooperation with non-kin  Revenge: Distant relationships (or none), relatively severe transgressions –Fosters inclusive fitness through protection of self and close others

A Functional Theory of Revenge  Revenge is an adaptation  Revenge is an idea that preserves a victim’s motivation to harm a transgressor long after the physiological consequences of the harm have subsided  Revenge was beneficial at some point in the development of the species

Motivation to Seek Revenge is a Redundant Biobehavioral System  Preparedness for Reciprocity (Cognitive, Cultural)  Coalitional Psychology (Perceptual, Cultural)  Honor and Deterrence (Social/Motivational)  The Lust for Enemies (Physiological/Motivational)

Preparedness for Reciprocity  Reciprocity is how we “punctuate” exchanges of aggression between groups  Positive and Negative Reciprocity in Non- Human Primates  Reciprocity in child development: –Piaget –Children are prepared to learn tit-for-tat solutions to social dilemmas  Stone age economics

Coalitional Psychology  Natural categories  Minimal groups (kids and chimps)  Non-equivalence of morality for in-groups and outgroups  Dehumanization of outgroups

Honor and Deterrence  Revenge and 9/11  Cultures of Honor (these are everywhere)  Revenge, forgiveness, and public communication of internal states (Frank’s costly signaling)

The Lust for Enemies  Revenge, like lust, is goal-directed (approach system). Interrupted goals bug us. –Left prefrontal activation during anger  Revenge as mood management (Catharsis)  Displaced aggression

Can We Forgive Enemies: How Culture Shapes and Directs Biology  Southern discomfort  Socializing the lust for revenge  Dogs who rear tiger cubs  People who forgive enemies?

Interpersonal Theory and Interpersonal Forgiveness  Interdependence/ Commitment  Perceived Friendliness  Perceived Dominance (Power to Harm)

Fostering Independence  Easy (Inter-religious) Solutions: Intermarriage, Godparenting  Harder (Intra-Religious) Solutions: Economic interdependence

Affiliation and Dominance  Personality of forgiver vs. personality of transgressor  Forgiveness positively correlated with affiliation and negatively with dominance axes  Factors that alter perceptions of transgressor’s friendliness and power to harm should facilitate forgiveness and reconciliation

Altering Perceptions of Friendliness and Dominance  Costly concessions  Surrender of resources for doing harm (Montenegro and other cultures)  Apologies and remorse  Human victors (not the vanquished) can offer appeasement gestures!

Thank You!