Intimate relationships provide emotional comfort and safety. However, if a close friend or romantic partner violates this safe space without expressing any remorse, such an offense can severely impact one’s self-image, emotional well-being, and the social norms governing these relationships (Jones et al., 1997). In response, some individuals may have an impulse to retaliate themselves (Jackson et al., 2019). Such revenge can take many forms, ranging from subtle passive-aggressive behaviors to overt acts of retaliation that may mirror or exceed the severity of the original offense (Tripp et al., 2002). Yet, a desire for revenge does not necessarily lead to action (Crombag et al., 2003). Instead, some individuals may choose to avoid the offender or forgive them (McCullough et al., 1998), while others may still wish to see the offender punished, for example through third-party intervention or fate (Tripp et al., 2007).
But what underlying factors drive individuals to choose one path of revenge over another? This research explores how dispositional motives and situational goals shape revenge-related decisions in close relationships. Specifically, we investigate the desire for personal revenge, the preferred severity of revenge, the preference for external punishment, and the decision to forgo revenge altogether.
By examining how these different responses to interpersonal offenses are associated with dispositional motives and situational goals, the present studies contribute to a better understanding of who is likely to engage in specific forms of revenge and why. Identifying the psychological functions underlying these responses may help identify factors that contribute to escalating or de-escalating interpersonal conflicts and inform approaches that promote more constructive ways of coping with offenses.
To understand why individuals respond differently to interpersonal offenses, it is necessary to consider both who is likely to seek particular forms of revenge and why they do so. We therefore first examine stable dispositional motives that may predispose individuals toward different revenge decisions. We then turn to situational goals as a more proximal account of the underlying motivation that may shape individuals’ revenge-related responses.
Individuals differ considerably in both their propensity to seek revenge and the forms of revenge they prefer. One important source of these differences lies in stable motivational dispositions. From a motivational psychology perspective (McClelland, 1988), behavior is driven by underlying dispositional motives and needs that often operate unconsciously and shape the basic principles guiding an individual’s behavior across situations (Lerner, 1977; Montada, 1998). Accordingly, these motives are also likely to affect how individuals perceive and respond to offenses in close relationships.
One broad category comprises motives of self-interest (Lerner, 1977; Montada, 1998). Although self-interest itself is often considered a fundamental driver of behavior, it is too broad to explain or predict specific behavioral patterns. Instead, self-serving motivation encompasses distinct motives, including the pursuit of success, autonomy, monetary rewards, and power (Lerner, 1977; Montada, 1998; Urbina & Ruiz-Villaverde, 2019). Among these, power-related motives appear particularly relevant for revenge: Individuals with a strong need for power or social dominance tend to adopt more competitive and less accommodating conflict strategies (Chun & Choi, 2014; Schneer & Chanin, 1987), are more likely to seek revenge to restore power or assert superiority (McKee & Feather, 2008), and show lower levels of forgiveness (Strelan et al., 2011).
In addition to motives of self-interest, justice motives constitute a second broad category (Lerner, 1977; Montada, 1998). These reflect a commitment to justice as a moral principle and the need to believe that people generally receive what they deserve. Justice motives can be distinguished into concerns for justice for others and justice for oneself. Whereas the former involves evaluating others’ claims according to internalized moral standards, the latter focuses on protecting one’s own legitimate claims while adhering to moral principles of fairness (Lerner, 1977; Montada, 1998). When individuals are personally affected by injustice, concerns about justice for oneself may become particularly salient. Individuals with strong dispositional justice motives are more likely to interpret events through a justice lens and react strongly to perceived injustices (Montada & Maes, 2016). Consistent with this view, stronger just-world beliefs have been associated with greater revenge motivation following the 9/11 attacks (Kaiser et al., 2004).
These previous findings indicate that dispositional motives related to power and justice are central to revenge responses. However, broad motivational constructs often have limited predictive value for specific experiences and behaviors because the psychological processes linking motives to behavior remain unclear (Murayama & Jach, 2025; Schmitt et al., 2009). Moreover, there is limited consensus regarding their conceptualization and measurement. To address these issues, this research follows a more nuanced approach by focusing on two specific personality dispositions closely linked to these motives: narcissistic need for power and victim justice sensitivity.
Narcissistic Need for Power. The narcissistic need for power (NNP), a specific dimension of the multidimensional construct of narcissism, reflects a strong desire for social authority, dominance, and control over others (D’Souza et al., 2019; Haumann et al., 2009; Raskin & Terry, 1988). Narcissistic characteristics have been associated with aggressive and vengeful responses (Brown, 2004; Rasmussen, 2016), with need for power representing an important pathway linking narcissism to antisocial behavior (Alexander et al., 2021). Individuals high in NNP are particularly concerned with maintaining a superior position in social relationships and may therefore be especially sensitive to experiences that threaten their status or challenge their sense of entitlement (Exline et al., 2004; Rasmussen, 2016). Accordingly, they may be more likely to respond to interpersonal offenses with retaliation. Given the heightened tendency of individuals high in narcissism to react aggressively to perceived injustice (Burton & Hoobler, 2011), NNP may also be associated with disproportionate revenge that exceeds the severity of the original offense. In contrast, externally administered punishment by a third party or fate may be less strongly related to NNP. As this form of revenge does not require the individual to directly assert dominance or exercise control over the offender, it is less congruent with the enduring power-oriented motives that characterize individuals high in NNP.
Victim Justice Sensitivity. Justice sensitivity from the victim’s perspective (JSV) refers to the stable tendency to perceive injustices against oneself more readily and more sensitively (Schmitt et al., 1995). Importantly, JSV is not merely an expression of self-interest or personal gain. Rather, it reflects a chronic concern with being treated fairly and with protecting oneself from exploitation and injustice, grounded in justice-related moral standards (Gollwitzer et al., 2005). Consistent with this dispositional orientation, individuals high in JSV are more likely to interpret others’ behavior as intentionally unfair or hostile (Bondü, 2018), fostering a defensive interpersonal orientation that has been linked to revenge and other antisocial responses (Gerlach et al., 2012; Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2005). Thus, individuals high in JSV may be particularly prone to retaliate against interpersonal offenses. Regarding the severity of revenge, two competing assumptions can be derived. On the one hand, a strong concern for justice may promote proportionate retaliation because it is sufficient to sanction unfair treatment. On the other hand, the heightened distrust and tendency toward hostile interpretations associated with JSV may foster excessive retaliation that exceeds the original offense (Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Maes, 1994). Unlike NNP, JSV is not characterized by a need to personally dominate or control the offender. Consequently, it may be associated with both personally and externally administered forms of revenge.
Taken together, these findings suggest that stable motivational dispositions may help explain who is likely to seek revenge and which forms of revenge individuals prefer. However, personality alone provides only a distal explanation of these differences. To understand how dispositional motives may translate into specific revenge responses, it is necessary to consider the situational goals that become relevant following an offense.
Revenge is rarely an end in itself. Rather, individuals may pursue revenge because they expect it to fulfill specific psychological functions in a given situation. These situational goals represent the immediate reasons underlying revenge decisions and may therefore provide a more proximal account of why individuals choose particular responses to interpersonal offenses (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Yoshimura, 2007). Broadly, revenge goals can be grouped into goals aimed at addressing the consequences of the offense for oneself (e.g., restoring self-worth or emotional balance) and goals aimed at communicating a message to the offender or others (e.g., reasserting power or deterring future harm; Boon & Yoshimura, 2020).
Although revenge has often been conceptualized as a means of deterring future transgressions (McCullough et al., 2013), empirical research suggests that people most commonly seek revenge to reestablish power or status, restore justice and fairness, correct the offender’s behavior, and balance the harm caused by the offense (Boon et al., 2009; Crombag et al., 2003; Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Yoshimura, 2007). Goals such as restoring self-worth or preventing future harm are reported less frequently (Boon et al., 2009; Crombag et al., 2003). While such goals may encourage revenge, other objectives may instead promote refraining from retaliation. In particular, restorative goals focus on helping offenders learn from their wrongdoing and improve themselves (Fousiani & van Prooijen, 2022), whereas relationship-oriented goals emphasize maintaining or repairing the relationship with the offender (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Yoshimura, 2007).
Across prior work (McKee & Feather, 2008; Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Strelan et al., 2011; Yoshimura, 2007), different situational goals have been linked to distinct patterns of revenge responses. Specifically, power- and status-related goals are associated with more assertive and aggressive forms of retaliation, whereas justice-related goals are compatible with both personal retaliation and externally administered punishment, as the primary aim is to sanction wrongdoing rather than personally dominate the offender. In contrast, relationship-oriented or rehabilitative goals are associated with reduced retaliation, conciliatory responses, and forgiveness. Thus, the functions revenge is intended to serve may shape not only whether individuals retaliate but also which form of revenge they prefer.
Situational goals do not arise independently from individual characteristics. Rather, stable dispositional motives may influence which goals become particularly salient following an interpersonal offense. Individuals high in NNP may be especially likely to pursue revenge when it serves goals related to restoring status, power, or control, whereas individuals high in JSV may be more strongly motivated by goals related to restoring justice and preventing further harm. Importantly, justice-related motives do not necessarily imply a lack of awareness that retaliation may violate moral standards. Rather, individuals may recognize the moral ambiguity of revenge while simultaneously perceiving retaliatory behavior as a legitimate response to wrongdoing (Gerlach et al., 2012; Gollwitzer et al., 2005).
Accordingly, situational goals may provide a more proximal explanation for why individuals differ in their revenge decisions and may help clarify how stable personality dispositions translate into specific forms of revenge.
Based on these theoretical considerations, the present research addresses two related questions. First, we examined whether NNP and JSV are associated with different revenge decisions, including the desire for personal revenge, the severity of revenge, and the desire for external revenge (Study 1). Second, we investigated whether these personality dispositions predict distinct situational revenge goals and whether these goals help explain preferences for different forms of revenge (Study 2).
These studies address two important gaps in the revenge literature. First, revenge has often been studied as a general tendency, but less is known about differentiated revenge decisions, including whether, to what extent, and in which form individuals seek revenge. Second, the motivational processes underlying revenge decisions remain insufficiently understood. In particular, dispositional motives and situational goals have rarely been examined together to explain why individuals differ in their responses to interpersonal offenses.
Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics and personality traits before being assigned to one of two betrayal vignettes. After imagining themselves in the described situation, they indicated whether they wanted to seek revenge, the desired severity of such revenge, and whether they preferred external punishment by a third party or fate (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Vignette Design with Decision Tree Structure (N = 375)
Vignettes. The vignettes were designed to evoke revenge tendencies by depicting a severe breach of trust committed by close others who showed little remorse. Participants currently in a romantic relationship read a vignette describing partner infidelity (infidelity condition; n = 234), whereas participants not in a romantic relationship or reporting “it’s complicated” read a vignette describing the public disclosure of a personal secret by close friends (betrayal of secrets condition; n = 141). This matching procedure was used to facilitate participants’ identification with the scenarios. A pre-study (N = 85) confirmed that both vignettes elicited comparable levels of perceived unfairness and scenario engagement (all ps > .10). The full vignette texts can be found in the appendix.
Participants were recruited through email lists, social media, and peer recruitment. After excluding participants who indicated that they could not imagine themselves in the scenario, the final sample consisted of 375 German participants (see Table 1 for demographic characteristics).
Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Studies 1 and 2
Personality traits were assessed using 6-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (absolutely not true) to 6 (absolutely true). Revenge decisions were assessed using dichotomous response options. All items are provided in the appendix.
Narcissistic Need for Power. Five items from the German Scale Inventory on Narcissism (SIN; Haumann et al., 2009) assessed NNP (α = .87). This multidimensional scale has proven to be reliable and valid in German samples, and could be differentiated from measures of self-esteem, self-love, and narcissism measured by NPI (Haumann et al., 2009).
Victim Justice Sensitivity. Five items from the German version of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI; Schmitt et al., 1997, 2005) assessed JSV (α = .76).
Revenge Decisions. Following the vignette presentation, participants indicated whether they would personally seek revenge (yes/no). Participants who chose personal revenge subsequently indicated whether they preferred proportional or excessive revenge. Those who rejected personal revenge indicated whether they preferred external punishment through a third party or fate, or letting the matter rest entirely. All items are provided in Figure A-1 in the appendix.
To examine whether JSV and NNP differ between revenge decision groups, six independent-samples t-tests are conducted. To account for multiple comparisons and reduce the risk of Type I error, a Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold is applied (αadj = .05 / 6 = .008). Exploratory analyses examine potential effects of vignette condition and gender on the decision to seek personal revenge, as well as gender differences in personality traits.
Overall, scores for NNP are below the scale midpoint of 3.5 (M = 2.96, SD = 1.23), while JSV scores are above the midpoint (M = 4.62, SD = 0.83). NNP and JSV are moderately positively correlated, r = .30, p < .001. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of participants’ revenge decisions.
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare revenge decision groups on NNP and JSV (see Figure 2). Full statistics for all pairwise comparisons are provided in the appendix.
Figure 2 Differences in Personality for Each Revenge Decision with According Effect Sizes
Note. ** p < .001, † p = .013, n.s. = non-significant difference
Participants who chose personal revenge scored higher on both NNP, t(373) = 8.14, p < .001, d = 0.84, and JSV, t(373) = 5.74, p < .001, d = 0.59, compared to those who did not choose personal revenge. Among participants choosing personal revenge, those preferring excessive over proportional revenge showed higher NNP, t(190) = 3.78, p < .001, d = 0.63. JSV was descriptively higher in the excessive revenge group but did not remain significant after Bonferroni correction, t(190) = 2.51, p = .013, d = 0.42. Finally, participants choosing external revenge rather than fully waiving revenge did not differ in NNP, t(181) = 0.98, p = .330, but showed higher JSV levels, t(181) = 3.68, p < .001, d = 0.57.
The proportion of participants choosing personal revenge did not differ between conditions, χ²(1, N = 375) = 2.35, p = .13. Overall, men were slightly more likely than women to choose personal revenge, χ²(1, N = 375) = 4.06, p = .04, φ = .10. When examined separately by condition, this difference was only significant in the infidelity condition, χ²(1, N = 234) = 3.71, p = .05, φ = .13. Men also scored higher on NNP than women, t(373) = -5.73, p < .001, d = 0.64, whereas JSV did not differ by gender, t(373) = 0.60, p = .55.
Study 2 used the same vignette-based procedure as Study 1. Participants first completed measures of personality traits before reading one of the two betrayal vignettes. After imagining themselves in the situation, they indicated their revenge decisions and revenge goals.
Participants were recruited through a German quota-based online panel to obtain a more diverse sample than in Study 1. The panel used quotas for age, gender, and education to approximate the demographic distribution of the German population. The final sample consisted of 550 German participants (see Table 1 for demographic characteristics).
All measures were assessed using 6-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (absolutely not true) to 6 (absolutely true).
Dispositional motives. NNP (α = .86) and JSV (α = .84) were assessed using the same measures as in Study 1.
Situational revenge goals. Situational goals were assessed with the newly developed Revenge Goals Scale, initially comprising 30 items adapted from existing measures, including the Conflict Goals Scale (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Yoshimura, 2007) and punishment goals scales (Fousiani & van Prooijen, 2022; Twardawski et al., 2020). Thus, the item pool integrated research on interpersonal conflict and revenge goals with related work on punishment goals. Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a six-factor solution based on 28 items: justice restoration (three items; α = .87), interpersonal restoration (three items; α = .84), dominance assertion (four items; α = .86), identity restoration (five items; α = .90), prevention (five items; α = .84), and reconciliation (eight items; α = .93). Two items were excluded due to insufficient factor loadings. Further details on the factor analyses and item wording are provided in the appendix.
Revenge decisions. Revenge decisions were assessed with five self-developed single items based on the decision tree used in Study 1. These items assessed (1) desire to avenge oneself (“I want to take revenge on these people”; M = 3.39, SD = 1.50), (2) desire for excessive revenge (“I think these people deserve an extremely harsh punishment”; M = 3.31, SD = 1.48), (3) desire for proportional punishment (“I think these people deserve a punishment that matches what they did to me”; M = 3.57, SD = 1.47), (4) desire for external punishment (“I would like these people to be punished by other people or by fate”; M = 3.65, SD = 1.60), and (5) full waiver of revenge (“I want to let the matter rest and refrain from any form of punishment”; M = 3.18, SD = 1.55).
Vignette immersion. Because individual differences in immersion may influence responses to hypothetical scenarios, perceived ability to imagine oneself in the scenario was included as a covariate (“I could easily imagine myself in the described situation”; M = 4.39, SD = 1.30).
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted separately for each revenge goal and revenge decision. In Step 1, age, gender, education, vignette condition, and vignette immersion were entered as covariates. In Step 2, NNP and JSV (or, for the prediction of revenge decisions, the six revenge goals) were entered simultaneously. Consistent with the preregistration, no formal correction for multiple testing was applied; instead, emphasis was placed on the consistency of findings across conceptually related outcomes.
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are reported in the appendix.
Overall, adding NNP and JSV in Step 2 of the hierarchical regression analyses predicting the six revenge goals significantly improved explained variance (ΔR²). The largest increase was observed for dominance assertion, ΔR² = .25, p < .001.
NNP primarily predicted goals of dominance assertion, β = .45, followed by identity restoration, β = .24, and reconciliation, β = .20, whereas JSV showed similarly high prediction effects for justice restoration, β = .33, prevention, β = .31, and identity restoration, β = .27.
Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Revenge Goals on Personality Traits
Note. Step 1 included age, gender, education, vignette condition, and immersion. Step 2 added the two personality traits. Standardized coefficients (β) from the final model are reported for the two personality traits narcissistic need for power (NNP) and victim justice sensitivity (JSV). All R²adj and ΔR² values are significant at p < .001. *** p < .001; ** p < .01
Adding situational revenge goals in Step 2 substantially improved the prediction of all revenge decisions (all ΔR² > .33, all p < .001; see Table 3), with the highest improvement for excessive revenge, ΔR² = .45. Desire for revenge, excessive revenge, proportional revenge, and external revenge were primarily associated with justice restoration (.25 ≤ β ≤ .31) and dominance assertion goals (.35 ≤ β ≤ .41), whereas prevention showed smaller positive associations (.10 ≤ β ≤ .20). In contrast, reconciliation was negatively associated with retaliatory responses (.18 ≤ |β| ≤ .24) and positively associated with full waiver of revenge (β = .34). Full waiver was additionally predicted by lower levels of justice restoration, dominance assertion, and prevention goals (.18 ≤ |β| ≤ .29), and by higher identity restoration goals (β = .16).
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Revenge Decisions on Revenge Goals
Note. Step 1 included age, gender, education, vignette condition, and immersion. Step 2 added the six revenge goals. Standardized coefficients (β) from the final model are reported for the six revenge goals justice restoration (JR), interpersonal restoration (IPR), dominance assertion (DA), identity restoration (IDR), prevention (PRE), and reconciliation (REC). All R²adj and ΔR² values are significant at p < .001. *** p < .001; * .01 < p < .05
Addressing how dispositional motives and situational goals shape revenge in close relationships, the present studies identified power- and justice-related motivations as key motivational drivers of revenge. At the dispositional level, both NNP and JSV were associated with stronger revenge preferences, with NNP showing stronger associations with excessive revenge and JSV with external punishment. At the situational level, justice restoration and dominance assertion consistently promoted revenge, whereas reconciliation reduced it, with further goals showing distinct associations with specific revenge decisions. Finally, the two dispositional motives were differentially related to situational goals, suggesting that their effects on revenge operate through partly distinct motivational pathways.
Power-related motivations were consistently associated with revenge across both studies. In Study 1, NNP was associated with choosing personal revenge and, in particular, with preferring excessive rather than proportional retaliation. Study 2 further suggested that these associations may be understood in motivational terms: NNP showed its strongest association with dominance assertion, which in turn was consistently related to retaliatory responses. NNP was also positively related, albeit more weakly, to identity restoration. Consistent with previous research linking narcissism and power motives to revenge (Alexander et al., 2021; McKee & Feather, 2008; Rasmussen, 2016), these findings suggest that power-related functions represent an important motivational basis of revenge among individuals high in NNP.
Such individuals may therefore not seek revenge solely to punish the offender. Given their strong desire for social authority, dominance, and control (e.g., D’Souza et al., 2019), betrayals in intimate relationships may be particularly threatening for them because such offenses may challenge their desired position of influence and superiority within the relationship as well as their social identity and self-image. Revenge may therefore simultaneously serve dominance-related and identity-restorative functions by communicating that violations of one’s status or authority will not be tolerated while reaffirming one’s interpersonal standing, reputation, and sense of self (Boon & Yoshimura, 2020). This motivational mechanism may be particularly pronounced following public offenses, when social status needs to be defended not only against the offender but also in the eyes of third parties (Ferriday et al., 2011).
Notably, power-related goals were not only associated with whether individuals sought revenge but also with how far they were willing to go. Dominance assertion showed the strongest association with excessive revenge among the situational goals examined, and NNP was specifically associated with excessive rather than proportional revenge in Study 1. When retaliation serves the goal of demonstrating dominance rather than merely correcting wrongdoing, more severe responses may appear more functional because they provide a stronger signal of power and superiority (McKee & Feather, 2008) and may appear justified from the individual’s perspective (Stillwell et al., 2008). Thus, excessive revenge may reflect not only heightened punishment motives but an attempt to reestablish a favorable power position within the relationship.
Justice-related motivations also emerged as an important basis of revenge. In Study 1, individuals high in JSV showed stronger revenge preferences, with a particular tendency to prefer external punishment over completely waiving revenge. Study 2 complemented this pattern by showing that individuals high in JSV primarily endorsed revenge goals of justice restoration and prevention. In line with previous research (Gerlach et al., 2012; Gollwitzer et al., 2005), these findings indicate that revenge among individuals high in JSV is primarily driven by concerns with restoring fairness and protecting oneself from future victimization.
Unlike individuals high in NNP, individuals high in JSV may seek revenge less to restore interpersonal status than to reestablish a sense of fairness following an offense. Revenge may therefore represent a means of sanctioning wrongdoing and reaffirming the belief that unjust behavior will have consequences. The suffering of the offender may serve to restore balance and maintain the perception of a just world (Lerner, 1977). Consequently, even if they acknowledge the moral wrongness of their vengeful actions, individuals high in JSV may still justify them as a means of pursuing justice (Gerlach et al., 2012; Gollwitzer et al., 2005).
The preference for external punishment over completely forgoing revenge among individuals high in JSV suggests that justice concerns are not necessarily tied to personally carrying out revenge. Rather, punishment itself appears to be central, regardless of who administers it. When personal retaliation is perceived as morally problematic or practically difficult (Schumann & Ross, 2010), externally administered punishment may represent an alternative means of restoring justice, reflecting an inherent concern for justice of individuals high in JSV (Gollwitzer et al., 2005).
At first glance, the slight tendency toward excessive revenge observed in Study 1 appears difficult to reconcile with a primary concern for restoring justice, which might be expected to favor proportionate retaliation. However, the simultaneous association of JSV with prevention goals may help explain this pattern. In Study 2, prevention was particularly associated with excessive revenge, suggesting that some individuals may view more severe retaliation as necessary to prevent future harm. Individuals high in JSV are more likely to perceive interpersonal events as unfair and threatening and may interpret ambiguous situations more suspiciously (Bondü, 2018; Schmitt et al., 2005). Consequently, they may perceive disproportionate retaliation as a justified protective response that communicates the seriousness of the violation and reduces the likelihood of future exploitation. Thus, excessive revenge among individuals high in JSV may reflect not only a desire to balance experienced injustice but also an attempt to regain security in the face of anticipated future threats (Maes, 1994).
The present studies offer several strengths. By using a vignette design situated in the context of intimate relationships, we reduced the influence of contextual factors that might otherwise inhibit revenge, such as power asymmetries or anticipated negative consequences in workplace settings (Schumann & Ross, 2010). While previous research has examined JSV and various facets of narcissism (e.g., Gerlach et al., 2012; Rasmussen, 2016), these studies have neither focused specifically on the facet of NNP, nor simultaneously considered both the extent of revenge and the preference for external punishment. Furthermore, Study 2 extended the findings of Study 1 by examining the situational goals that may help explain differences in revenge decisions in a larger and more heterogeneous sample. By integrating dispositional characteristics with more proximal motivational processes, the present research provides a more differentiated account of why individuals differ in their responses to interpersonal offenses.
However, some limitations need to be considered. First, the vignette methodology limits ecological validity and may restrict the generalizability of the findings to real-life offenses. Although we included scenario immersion checks to address this issue, some participants reported difficulties imagining themselves in the described situations, highlighting the challenge of creating scenarios that are sufficiently provocative to elicit revenge motivations while remaining realistic and relatable. Across studies, we addressed this issue by excluding participants with low immersion in Study 1 and statistically controlling for immersion in Study 2. Nevertheless, future research should complement vignette approaches with evidence from real-life contexts, including both revenge intentions and actual retaliatory behaviors (see also Crombag et al., 2003).
Second, the cross-sectional design limits conclusions about the temporal dynamics of the motivational processes underlying revenge desires. Although we examined associations between personality dispositions, situational goals, and revenge preferences, their temporal or causal ordering remains unclear. In particular, it remains uncertain whether situational goals account for the associations between personality dispositions and revenge responses, or whether they partly reflect individuals’ interpretations of their intended actions. Longitudinal and experimental research, including formal tests of motivational pathways, is therefore needed to clarify how dispositional motives become activated in specific situations and contribute to revenge-related behavior. Such research could also examine whether these motivational processes are stable over time, how they may change in response to interpersonal experiences, and whether they can be deliberately modified through interventions.
The present findings suggest that revenge-related responses may be better understood by considering the motivations underlying them. Rather than reflecting a uniform reaction to interpersonal offenses, revenge may serve different psychological functions, including restoring threatened status and dominance or addressing perceived injustice and preventing future harm. Accordingly, third parties involved in conflict resolution may benefit from identifying the specific concerns underlying revenge desires, as these may provide different starting points for reflection and dialogue.
For example, if revenge is motivated by a perceived threat to status or power, a conflict coach or mediator might invite reflection on what the individual experienced as a threat to their standing or influence and what they would need to feel that this concern has been adequately addressed. If revenge is motivated by perceived injustice, the focus might instead be on articulating what was perceived as a violation and which norms or expectations underlie this judgment. In this way, the conversation could move beyond the offense and the question of retaliation to the concern that makes retaliation seem warranted, potentially creating space for mutual understanding and de-escalation. Whether such approaches effectively reduce revenge, however, remains to be tested.
The present research demonstrates that revenge following interpersonal offenses serves different psychological functions. In particular, revenge may represent an attempt to restore a sense of justice following perceived wrongdoing or to reestablish threatened power, status, and control. Accordingly, interpersonal offenses can be experienced in different ways: as violations of fairness or as threats to one’s position and social standing within a relationship.
The present findings further show that these motivational differences are linked to individuals’ dispositional tendencies. Whereas justice-related dispositions are associated with goals centered on restoring fairness and preventing further harm, power-related dispositions are associated with goals aimed at asserting dominance and restoring status. Thus, individuals may arrive at similar revenge responses for different reasons, with the function of revenge depending partly on the motivational concerns that are activated following an offense.
Overall, revenge should not be understood solely as a desire to harm the offender, but as a response that may serve to restore different forms of psychological balance. Understanding these distinct motivational pathways provides a more nuanced account of why interpersonal offenses escalate into revenge and may help inform strategies that foster reflection, mutual understanding, and de-escalation.
Study 1 was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (#158-2023). The study was not preregistered. Study 2 was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (#241-2026). The preregistration is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XSBZ8
Alexander, M. B., Gore, J., & Estep, C. (2021). How need for power explains why narcissists are antisocial. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 1335–1352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120926668
Bondü, R. (2018). Is bad intent negligible? Linking victim justice sensitivity, hostile attribution bias, and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 44(5), 442–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21764
Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2009). Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6-7), 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347926
Boon, S. D., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2020). Revenge as social interaction: Merging social psychological and interpersonal communication approaches to the study of vengeful behavior. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(9), e12554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12554
Brown, R. P. (2004). Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(6), 576–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.003
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00886.x
Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036363
Crombag, H., Rassin, E., & Horselenberg, R. (2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000068647
D’Souza, M. F., Oliveira, M. L. S., Almeida, J. S. C., & Natividade, D. S. (2019). I can, you can, I can more: narcissism and power. Journal of Education and Research in Accounting, 13(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v13i2.2103
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894
Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Punishment reactions to powerful suspects. Comparing a “corrupt” vs. a “leniency” approach of power. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462
Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1373–1413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x
Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-7368-1
Haumann, C., Ade, F., Gerlach, T., Schuster, J., & Maes, J. (2009, September 28–30). Entwicklung und Validierung eines Skaleninventars zum Narzissmus [Development and validation of a scale inventory for narcissism] [Conference presentation]. Conference of the DGPs Expert Group on Differential Psychology, Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment (DPPD), Landau, Germany.
Jackson, J. C., Choi, V. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2019). Revenge: A multilevel review and synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103305
Jones, W. H., Couch, L., & Scott, S. (1997). Trust and betrayal: The psychology of getting along and getting ahead. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 465–482). Academic Press.
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2004). A prospective investigation of the relationship between Just-World Beliefs and the desire for revenge after September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15(7), 503–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00709.x
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x
Maes, J. (1994). Psychologische Überlegungen zu Rache [Psychological considerations on revenge]. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8984
McClelland, D. C. (1988). Human Motivation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878289
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Brown, S. W., Worthington, E. L., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160
McKee, I. R., & Feather, N. T. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0066-z
Montada, L. (1998). Gerechtigkeitsmotiv und Eigeninteresse [Justice motive and self-interest]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 1(3), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4509
Montada, L., & Maes, J. (2016). Justice and self-interest. In C. Sabbagh, & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 109–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_6
Murayama, K., & Jach, H. K. (2025). A critique of motivation constructs to explain higher-order behavior: We should unpack the black box. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 48, e24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24000025
Ohbuchi, K.-I., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(24), 2177–2199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01647.x
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890
Rasmussen, K. (2016). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 42(4), 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21632
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Fetchenhauer, D., Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., & Schlösser, T. (2009). Sensibilität für Ungerechtigkeit [Justice Sensitivity]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.60.1.8
Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice Sensitivity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.202
Schmitt, M., Maes, J., & Schmal, A. (1997). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Analyse der Meßeigenschaften von Meßinstrumenten für Einstellungen zu Verteilungsprinzipien, Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität und Glaube an eine gerechte Welt [Justice as a German domestic problem: Analysis of the properties of measurement instruments for attitudes towards distribution principles, justice sensitivity and belief in a just world]. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.9280
Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334713
Schneer, J. A. & Chanin, M. N. (1987). Manifest needs as personality predispositions to conflict-handling behavior. Human Relations, 40(9), 575–590.
Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1193–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x
Stillwell, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Del Priore, R. E. (2008). We’re all victims here: Toward a psychology of revenge. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802375094
Strelan, P., Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. (2011). Retributive and inclusive justice goals and forgiveness: The influence of motivational values. Social Justice Research, 24(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0132-9
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 966–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00038-9
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2007). A vigilante model of justice: Revenge, reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 10–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0030-3
Twardawski, M., Yang, K. T. Y., & Hilbig, B. E. (2020). Is it all about retribution? The flexibility of punishment goals. Social Justice Research, 33, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00352-x
Urbina, D. A., & Ruiz-Villaverde, A. (2019). A critical review of homo economicus from five approaches. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(1), 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12258
Yoshimura, S. (2007). Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072592
Table 4 Items for Victim Justice Sensitivity (α = .76; Schmitt et al., 2005)
Table 5 Items for Narcissistic Need for Power (α = .87; Haumann et al., 2009)
After a very stressful but successful week at work, during which you barely saw all your loved ones, you were able to convince your boss to let you leave early for the weekend. Your plan is to celebrate the achievements of the week together with your partner and so you arrange a romantic evening for the two of you on the way home. You radiate anticipation and imagine different purely beautiful scenarios of the evening. You cannot imagine what could make you even happier at this moment. To surprise your partner, you quietly enter your apartment bearing a small gift. You immediately see that your partner is not in the immediate proximity of the entrance area of the apartment, and you decide to put on something comfortable to enjoy the evening even more. You therefore go into the bedroom, where your closet is located.
In front of the closed bedroom door, you can hear both a male and a female voice, both sounding joyfully excited. You assume that your partner is listening to an audio book to relax, which would explain why your entrance to the apartment went unnoticed. When entering the bedroom, however, you immediately see that you have caught your partner in flagrante. The two lovers notice you too, and visibly unimpressed and without any sense of guilt, your partner explains that your relationship has been a farce for a long time and that the moment is just right to make the breakup between you two official. The person who presumably from now on will take your place in bed, also expresses little sensitivity and advises you to "take it in your stride, because it's just an adventurous fling, and nothing more".
For some time now, you have often been remembering embarrassing, unpleasant or even criminal things you did and experienced in your youth. Now that you have matured, you are beginning to regret these acts and would like to undo them. Sometimes memories of the past are so unpleasant and distasteful that you are finding it harder and harder to fall asleep and to get a proper night’s sleep. One day you decide that it is time to confide in someone and ease your conscience. To this end, on a beautiful summer's day, you arrange a meeting in a café with your two best friends. After some small talk you manage to open up to your friends and tell them about all the things that keep you awake at night. You feel very relieved, and your friends seem to be very understanding and bolster your courage and confidence by insisting that things aren’t that bad. On the way home, a slight doubt niggles at your sense of relief: Was it wise to share such private information with other people? However, you reassure yourself that these people are your best friends who only have your best interests at heart. You even smile a little at how you can be so suspicious.
When you arrive home, you decide to check your e-mails and visit your social media platform. There you see that your two friends have not only compiled and published a list of all your embarrassing and dangerous secrets, but at the same time a competition is taking place in the comments section to see who can write the meanest comment. You can also see that your friends are compounding this process with their own nasty comments. When you finally reach your friends on the phone and confront them, you merely get the answer that you should not make such a fuss. After all, it is a source of great fun for everyone.
Figure 3 Revenge Decision Tree
Table 6 Group Comparisons Regarding Narcissistic Need for Power
Note. ** p < .001; power was calculated post-hoc (one-tailed, α error probability = .008)
Table 7 Group Comparisons Regarding Victim Justice Sensitivity
Note. ** p < .001; † p = .013; power was calculated post-hoc (one-tailed, α error probability = .008)
Table 8 Factor Matrix of Revenge Goals
Note. 1 Self-developed items; 2 items adapted from Ohbuchi & Tedeschi (1997) and Yoshimura (2007); 3 items adapted from Twardawski et al. (2020), 4 Items adapted from Fousiani & Van Prooijen (2021); 5 items were not included in further analyses due to low factorial loadings and cross-loadings
Table 9 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations of Study Variables
Note. NNP: narcissistic need for power; JSV: victim justice sensitivity; JR: justice restoration, IPR: interpersonal restoration, DA: dominance assertion, IDR: identity restoration, PRE: prevention, REC: reconciliation, REV: revenge, EXC: excessive revenge, PRO: proportional revenge; EXT: external revenge, FW: full waiver. Correlations involving revenge decisions (Variables 9–13) are Spearman correlations; all others are Person correlations. Coefficients ≥ |.10| are significant at p < .01; coefficients of |.09| at p < .05; smaller coefficients are not significant.