I have to admit it… Chapter 12 was hard for me to read. I had to read some sentences 3 or 4 times to make sure I kindof understood what they were saying. So, my interpretation of the chapter may be slightly off…. But here goes!
This chapter was about revenge and forgiveness, two behaviors that seem to be completely at odds with each other. The authors argue that both are similar, though, in that we use them to minimize costs and maximize benefits to ourselves. They start with revenge, and offer a new definition than the ones that previous researchers have used. The definition they use for revenge is that it’s a deterrence system that we use to change other people’s incentives regarding both ourselves and our family/friends. We do this by causing harm to the person or by withholding benefits. (Side note, they call this a functional definition, but other researchers have used other definitions in a functional way, so I don’t see what’s so special about this.) They then divide this deterrence system called revenge into 3 different kinds: direct deterrence, third party deterrence, and deterrence by withholding. Direct deterrence is pretty much what it sounds like; someone will harm you after you’ve harmed them. There seems to be a lot of evidence for direct deterrence, but the authors managed to confuse the issue by finding studies that showed that direct deterrence increased noncooperation rather than decrease it like most studies show. Third party deterrence is revenge when someone feels their honor has been questioned. When the authors talk about third party deterrence, they mention that studies have shown that arguments in front of witnesses tend to escalate in violence more than arguments that don’t have witnesses. I learned this in another class earlier, so this wasn’t a huge surprise to me. Finally, with deterrence by withholding benefits, we learn that if someone is capable of revenge, others will be less likely to withhold benefits. To move onto forgiveness, the authors leave the definition that other authors have used (less motivation for revenge, less motivation to avoid the offender, and more motivation for good will towards said person) but add one more thing: these changes happen because they promote restoration of beneficial relationships. The authors argue that forgiveness happens mostly if the costs for revenge are too high or if the risk of losing benefits is too great. People tend to forgive two groups of people the most; people that they do not need to be around and so don’t need to get revenge against and those people that they are most close to (family and friends). Also, people who express a willingness to right a wrong they’ve committed will more easily and quickly be forgiven, especially when they offer proof of their willingness to change (like surrendering weapons).
I found myself questioning whether the authors knew what they were talking about when they discussed revenge. They throw out the part of the definition that says that revenge is about the satisfaction of harming another person (or thought of satisfaction, as revenge rarely truly satisfies anyone. If it does, the satisfaction is short-lived). They also throw out the thought that revenge is done to gain pleasure from hurting someone who has hurt you, and that people think about revenge before they commit to it. Throwing out these parts of a revenge definition makes no sense to me. I’ve never heard of someone who unconsciously plans revenge, and revenge is definitely planned. Also, part of the point of revenge is to make others suffer for what they’ve done to you, and in making others suffer, you anticipate enjoyment and satisfaction from the revenge you plan. The authors also talk about revenge as though it’s something that can be done instantly. I don’t believe that. I’ve always been taught that revenge is something that you plan, that you do not do instantly. If you were to “avenge” yourself instantly, it would be called self-defense. After all, it’s something that you do in response to something that been done to you. As far as forgiveness goes, I didn’t anything that I disagreed with, in fact, I completely agree with their continuance of separating forgiveness with reconciliation. I know from personal experience that you can forgive without wanting to continue a relationship with someone. One more thing about both forgiveness and revenge that the authors forgot about: both are choices that people make. You must choose to either seek revenge or forgiveness. Forgiveness is harder, but it’s a healthier choice.
Nothing really surprised me much in this chapter. I would say that the thing that surprised me most was not anything that has to do with the topic; rather, it the fact that they used evolution and natural selection to explain these systems, than they said that the systems were designed! And that’s not really surprising, it’s just more ironic. If something “evolved” and was promoted by natural selection, how could the system become designed? Who designed it? And when; when it was passed on? Again, has nothing to do with the topic, I just wanted to point out the irony.
As far as this week’s topic goes (organized crime) I can see where the revenge part comes in. From my understanding of organized crime (I’m thinking Mafia, maybe gangs) revenge is very common if someone insults, questions, or harms someone in the organization. However, I don’t think forgiveness comes into play, even within the organization. I believe some groups will forgive a mess-up once, but never twice. Some don’t even do that. Of course, we could say that it’s Social Darwinism at work, I suppose. But I’ve never thought that Social Darwinism was a good idea or that it worked particularly well. I suppose that, and a lack of access to organized crime, has made sure that I wouldn’t join an organized crime group. When it comes to sadistic rapists, it’s possible (even probable) that some will rape to gain a sense of revenge against others who have hurt them, but forgiveness? I’m not sure they forgive. If they did, they probably wouldn’t feel the need to hurt others, since forgiveness is all about not hurting others.
This chapter focused on the aspects of revenge and forgiveness related to our cognitive functioning. The chapter indicates that these two aspects are important to the topic of violence because revenge can lead to aggressive behavior or actions towards others. Understanding the difference between revenge and forgiveness and their effect on violence could provide a greater understanding in the study of aggression and violence.
The authors describe how revenge can be seen as a disease, and therefore, forgiveness could be the “cure” so to speak. While forgiveness can have positive therapeutic effects in certain settings, it does not necessarily mean it could be used as a cure for revenge. Both revenge and forgiveness are actions or mechanisms that are created based on psychological thought that then evolve to possible problematic behavior. The authors break down the idea of revenge as a mechanism that discourages interpersonal harm, while forgiveness is a mechanism that assists in maintaining relationships despite the harm that occurs. The functionality of both ideas is what is described in detail throughout the chapter using research and studies that have been done on both ideas.
What I found interesting about the discussion regarding revenge was the dynamics that came into play when involving a third party. Displaced aggression is discussed and defined as when a victim of some form of aggression later ends up harming a third party. The authors later indicate that this does not fit the definition of revenge because the function of revenge has not been met (the person identified as the third party is not the intended target of the aggression), and instead only a psychological process occurred toward another party. Later in the chapter the third party idea came up again, discussing how mechanisms that cause revenge are “sensitive” to third parties. It is described that when others are present to view an aggressive incident, the victim of the incident is more apt to act in revenge. This idea reminded me of some readings I have came across while studying youth violence for my expert topic. It seems that violence is often more likely when an audience is present to view an aggressive incident because the victim feels they need to fight for their respect or stand up for themselves. If they feel disrespected in front of other people, they then have to prove themselves in order to regain that respect and often they have to become even more aggressive than what the initial aggressor was to get that respect.
Forgiveness is defined as a set of changes when one’s motivation to retaliate is decreased due to maintaining the relationship or to avoid the offender. The authors explain that there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation because reconciliation is about restoring the relationship while forgiveness does not have that requirement. Forgiveness requires that the victim has to reenter the relationship in some way with offender and not wish for revengeful behavior.
The chapter contained interesting concepts relating to revenge and forgiveness, but I found this chapter difficult to read (maybe end of semester brain) and focus on. I can see how these two ideas can relate to aggression and violence in our society. As stated above, it seems that revenge is closely tied into youth violence as well. The idea of acting in a way that perpetuates vengeful behavior is a main focal point in violence among youth: proving self to others, looking tough, gaining respect, surviving one’s environment, etc. Although it may not be a cure, I could see how promoting forgiveness in our youth and teaching them the real meaning behind it and what positives it can do could assist in decreasing aggressive or violent behavior.
I don’t think I’m alone in saying this but Chapter 12 was a mess and a nightmare to read. I found it extremely convoluted and irrelevant when considering this week’s topic of Organized Crime. With that disclaimer, I digress…
The focus of Chapter 12 involved the mechanisms of revenge and forgiveness for which the authors put an evolutionary spin on these two constructs. From the get-go McCullough and his colleagues cite the importance of understanding the functions of the cognitive systems involved in revenge and forgiveness not just from a scientific standpoint, but socially as well. This is particularly true if we consider revenge as a causal factor for homicide. Revenge is also a motivating factor for individuals who decide to join terrorist organizations.
Prior to more scientific research, revenge was viewed as a “disease”. Meanwhile, forgiveness came to be viewed as a possible “cure” or solution to revenge. Empirical research proved otherwise, however. Thus, McCullough and colleagues propose that revenge and forgiveness result from distinct psychological adaptations which then evolved to solve more specific adaptive problems (p. 222). More specifically, revenge mechanisms evolved because they are successful at deterring interpersonal harms. Forgiveness mechanisms evolved because they are an efficient means to preserving valuable relationships despite those interpersonal harms.
The authors then go on to describe the evolution of both revenge and forgiveness as well as providing functional definitions of these two mechanisms. McCullough and his colleagues focused on functional definitions rather than behavioral ones due to the lack of uniformity and consistent operationalization of these two constructs throughout the social scientific literature. By providing a functional definition for revenge for instance, it then “becomes possible to search for evidence of the features- behavioral or physiological- that contribute to accomplishing the putative function” (p. 224).
According to our authors, revenge is a system of deterrence that is designed to change others’ incentives by imposing costs after harm, or withholding benefits, as well as signaling that subsequent acts will be subject to the same contingent response. Then they move on to various selection pressures that gave rise to mechanisms for revenge. These include direct deterrence, deterring third parties, and deterring the withholding of benefits. Direct deterrence is pretty straight forward: revenge will discourage an aggressor from harming the individual(s) again. One complication that may arise however, is that the entity being harmed can be intermittently vengeful. In other words, it may take more than one transgression on the part of the aggressor to elicit a vengeful response (revenge mechanism). This is where the most interesting (well, only interesting) part of the chapter comes in. Social psychological studies concerning this topic have involved various “games” in which confederates are involved. One study in particular (Diamond, 1977) conducted a study in which undergraduate men wrote an essay which was later ripped apart by a confederate. Participants were then brought back the next day and given the opportunity to give (fake) shocks to the person who had derogated their essay the day before. Half of the participants were led to believe that after giving the person shocks, the roles would be switched and they were now going to receive the shocks as well. Diamond (1977) found that the participants who believed that they could harm the insulting evaluator without the threat of retaliation gave stronger shocks to the confederate. In terms of deterring third parties, reputation plays a major role. The psychological mechanisms for revenge are sensitive to the presence of third parties. For example, victims will retaliate more strongly against their aggressor when a third party has witnessed the provocation. Felson (1982) found that “when two men get into an argument, the mere presence of a third person doubles the likelihood that the argument will escalate to a violent encounter” (p. 228).
Lastly, the authors move on to the evolution of forgiveness. Here, the authors’ functional definition of forgiveness on p. 230. They state that when the costs of revenge are too high in relation to its expected deterrence benefits, an organism may take a different approach- forgiveness. In other words, forgiveness involves primate causation. As McCullough and colleagues predict, forgiveness is generated by systems that are designed to compute and compare the cost of forgoing revenge and the benefits that are expected as a result of restoring a relationship (through forgiveness).
I don’t feel this chapter goes well with my expert topic of genocide, at least not with the evolutionary spin that was used by the authors. I am positive though that revenge does play a role in the etiology of genocide but the “cues” for lack of a better word, that elicit vengeful responses vary greatly from genocide to genocide. Forgiveness would be ideal when trying to reconcile the groups involved in genocides, however that is more of a “fairy-tale” or far-fetched idea. It’s kind of difficult to forget or forgive a group that is responsible for wiping out a large chunk of your ethnic/racial group through brutally violent means. I’m not entirely convinced forgiveness is possible given those situations.
Chapter 12 deals with revenge and the efforts to understand the functions of the cognitive systems that underlie humans’ capacities for revenge and forgiveness. The chapter also discusses the evolution of revenge, and also revenge and forgiveness as a functional framework.
The chapter starts by explaining the social aspects of revenge. I found this to be interesting, yet reasonable. The desire for revenge in developed nations is cited as a causal factor in as many as 20 percent of homicides. This came off as alarming, mainly because the only murders I hear about on the news are serial killers, or acts of violence in the Middle East. I then began to incorporate problems that could occur before the vengeful act such as infidelity between spouses and money problems. The other statistics aren’t really that alarming, such as revenge being the motive behind 61 percent of school shootings.
Revenge and forgiveness are said to be related in this chapter, yet at first I did not think so. I agree with Tasha J, when she claims that they seem to be complete opposites of each other. In relation to the social aspect of revenge, some social scientists have thought of revenge as being a psychological dysfunction, or a “revenge disease.” This led to thinking that since revenge is the disease, then forgiveness would be the cure. This would not be the case, however. Since interventions in therapeutic settings do provide reduced psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression and boost self esteem, this does not explain exactly why forgiveness is a “cure” for revenge.
The chapter also stems off of previous definitions of revenge to provide it’s own. The definition of revenge in a functional perspective is long, but provides predictions of the design features of the psychology of revenge. Revenge is also not meant to produce pleasure, rather revenge focuses on the social and beneficial aspects such as costs. They functionally define revenge as “behavior resulting from a mechanism designed to deter the imposition of costs on oneself or one’s allies by the imposition of costs following a target’s imposition of costs, where costs sand benefits are defined in terms of their effects on lifetime reproductive fitness.” The way that I interpret this definition is that people produce this behavior (revenge) in order to withhold benefits from other people in order to gain personally. This definition came off as confusing at first, but the text provided some features to explain why it works as a definition.
What interested me in this chapter was the use of third parties in revenge. Third parties in relation to revenge uses reputation to understand how it might work. The text uses ancestral humans to exemplify this. For example, they did not have or benefit from institutions protecting human rights, so they depended on their retaliation to protect their reputation. Also, it was shown that when two men get into an argument, they become more excited if there is a presence of a third person, which could lead to a violent encounter. This makes sense, since people (not necessarily meaning just men) are in an argument by themselves, then they could just stop or come to an agreement. Their honor, or ego may be at stake if there is a third person, so more violence may occur. Also, the bystander effect plays a large part in third parties. The bystander effect is when a group of people who are witnessing an argument or act of violence are less likely to help stop the argument or help the victim. If the people fighting are aware of this then that will only make them fight more because they think no one is going to stop then, therefore no one will hurt their ego.
This chapter doesn’t really relate to my expert topic, which is elder abuse. The only aspect of this chapter that I think is in relation to elder abuse is forgiveness and the expected value of the relationship in forgiveness. Since close relatives are likely to be a source of benefits, then we expect that cues of kinship will facilitate forgiveness. This in turn will restraint vengeance. If forgiveness from an elder is not present, then the likelihood of vengeance is greater, therefore acts of violence, or other abuse such as the psychological abuse behind financial abuse is present.
This chapter was less than fun to read. I figured after reading college level research papers for the past few years i could handle this text without too much hassel, but this chapter made me feel like my IQ dropped a few points. So now that I have my lesson in humility, I can move on to the subject at hand. I personally wonder if the subject of revenge should be broken down farther into types of revenge. The text attempts to discuss revenge in a way that takes out the planning and gratification of the acts. This kind of revenge seems like what we find on a playground where kid one hits kid two, so kid two strikes back to get back at kid one. It looks alot like self defence except for the fact child two is not in further danger of child one, and is reacting in a way to assure child one knows not to mess with them any more. The text explains that there should be some sort of evolutionary reason we participate in revenge behaviors. I really never thought of revenge as a biologically driven behavior because I never really thought of it with out the plotting and enjoyment aspect. I am one of those karma loving people who lets the fates take control of my paybacks, and I still find some bits of pleasure in finding karmic revenge in those I am less than pleased with... after all, whats sweeter than revenge? After mulling over the differing definitions of revenge I've decided there is room for both brands of revenge. I'm sure our cave brute ancestors used revenge to assert their place in tribe hierarchy. This makes sense in an evolutionary sense, and works with the texts view of revenge. This all brings us to the debate of forgiveness. I suppose that revenge and forgiveness are opposite ends of the spectrum, but both very necessary in a society. If we watch our little primate friends we can see the way a social group functions on a very primal level. The group head must keep his other monkey buddies in check and retaliate with revenge when they do him wrong, but those little buddies can't hold a grudge against him, he's the leader after all, he's just putting the others in their place and keeping the social structures functioning. Revenge functions as punishment often for the little monkeys that have done naughty things and forgiveness keeps things cohesive.
The topic for the week is organized crime. As was discussed in class, this is easy to tie revenge to, but i really feel as if there is much more of the plotting type of revenge going on here than the instantanious reactive revenge. Maybe I've just watched too many mob movies where they plot out who is going to get sacked. The organized crime system is... well it's organized! It's run like a business and if you don't live up to company standards you will no longer be with the company. You shouldn't cross the boss, you shouldn't cheat the company, and you definately should never share company secrets. Any damages done towards the company or it's property and associates will incur some sort of revenge from the company. Revenge is evident here, but I'm not too certain that forgiveness plays a big role... the company has a very slim list of forgivable sins.
So, I wanted to tie in my expert topic because I think revenge and forgiveness play an interesting role in sibling violence. Siblings may have many reasons to feel that revenge may be beneficial to them, if older bro gets the better bedroom, or younger sis is mommies favorite, or a disabled sibling garners more attention. Young children often at odds with eachother to feel superior and gain status, time, affection, or benefits over the others. If a child feels threatened by a sibling the opportunities for revenge are accessible through proximity and frequent exposure to the other child or their possessions. When we put forgiveness into play it gets really interesting. Parents may force a child to say sorry or attempt to talk them into forgiving a sibling. Just this morning I had to tell my daughter that he toddler brother didn't mean to tear her book, it really was an accident. She wanted revenge, she wanted to rip his favorite book. We also find in sibling settings a sort of protectiveness between siblings. Things that may result in an act of revenge from a sibling would be felt to be inappropriate by that same sibling if they were from a non-sibling person. A brother may feel fine punching his brother for saying something mean, but wouldn't tolerate his buddy punching his brother for saying the same thing. Siblings at odds can even be found getting over their arguments and forgiving eachother in order to unite against an outsider. I feel like if we want to get down to the bones of what sort of evolutionary benefit revenge and forgiveness have we could look to these sorts of relationships to provide us with an interesting view. Revenge holds benefits in ensuring commodities are not lost, and forgiveness holds benefits in allowing for creating a cohesive environment.
Chapter 12 was a really interesting, although poorly written, chapter in our handbook that focused on the nature of revenge and forgiveness in relation to violence. That author of this article tries to give a functional definition of revenge, but it is very muddled in the text. From what I gather, the definition of revenge in this section is a way to change something about another organisms' incentives that induce them to emit benefits and cease from imposing costs on the original person. The chapter then goes on to a very muddled sort of explanation of different types of revenge and selection pressures.
Finally, we get to forgiveness. The handbook defines forgiveness as a set of motivational changes wherby an organism becomes both decreasingly motivated to retaliate against an offending relationship partner and decreasingly motivated to avoid the offender and increases their desire to reconcile with their partner. This definition seemed a lot more straight-forward than the section about revenge. The handbook, from what I gathered of the ending, then goes on to talk about how the two interact.
The most interesting thing I found in this chapter, from what I could understand as it seemed like the author was going off on a ramble for the fast majority of the chapter and adding a lot of jargon, was the definition of forgiveness. It was interesting how the chapter broke the definition into three separate parts. Most people tend to think of forgiveness as just getting rid of the grudge they held onto and trying to re-establish the relationship. However, it makes much more sense that there would be more specific parts to this. Without even one of the parts the handbook mentioned as being part of forgiveness, the whole thing goes out the window and you either end up holding onto the grudge and not talking to the person again, or pretending everything is okay and ending up resenting the person or yourself. At least, that is how I see it.
I think this chapter works very well with my expert topic. Kids that are bullied sometimes feel the need to retaliate and get revenge on the kids that bullied them. However, the sad thing is that sometimes this backfires on them and the kids who were just standing up for themselves get in more trouble than the original offenders. Forgiveness also plays a role in bullying, because forgivenesse can potentially keep victims of school violence and bullying from holding onto their resentment and having it negatively impact their future. All-in-all, revenge has to do with every single one of our expert topics. When revenge comes into play, as we learned from the general aggression model, the violence will only escalate to obsene amounts.
Chapter 12 discusses revenge and forgiveness in society and how the definitions have evolved in society. The chapter had some overall interesting main theses describing why people engaged in revenge, how forgiveness is related to revenge, and how both revenge and forgiveness have consequences and causes.
As stated in the book, I found the idea of consequences for forgiveness quite surprising, because it would seem as though the ideal solvent would be to forgive a person of their wrong-doings. As stated in the book, however, this leaves people open to being seen as weak, and possible chances of a forgiving nature to be taken advantage of, which could then lead to a higher chance of revenge. Also, when discussing these topics in class, I thought the subject of forgiveness in a domestic violent case as problematic to be very true. A cycle of forgiveness from the victim to the perpetrator is ultimately a problem, and this problem is consequently very much like a bad habit, making it difficult to break. The main reason I found forgiveness as a problem so surprising is due to evolutionary definition forgiveness as amassed, which is to keep relationships and communities in tact. How could such a positive and enmeshing idea cause so many negative reactions? This is something I would have liked the chapter to go into more detail on.
What I found most interesting in the chapter was the influence of a third group in context with revenge. Studies have shown the entrance of a third party will make the likelihood of revenge between two people much higher. This sort of situation could easily be seen by anyone without needing to have higher qualifications. However, I still think this issue deserves attention because it incorporates the presence of others and how it can change the actions of others. This also seems to tie into how revenge has evolved as a definition, which is stating that people are less likely to start fights when they know the other person will do something in retaliation. However, because of another person, this increases the chances of revenge due to a myriad of reasons. The simplest explanation would be pride and wanting to save face. The presence of an individual (or group) can possibly provoke someone who originally had no real intention of planning revenge. This was described more thoroughly in the book, but the third party might insinuate cowardliness or the need for justice.
In relation to organized crime, I thought the topic of forgiveness between those who are around each other quite a bit (including family) are more likely to forgive those of their transgressions while simultaneously being less likely to engage in revenge. This does not make the chance of revenge nonexistent, but if people are to be working in close contact with one another, conflicts would not be productive. This is only useful for organizations that tend to be related however, because in a highly violent lifestyle, I would find it that people would be more willing to kill others they have known. However, taking advantage of forgiveness (as mentioned earlier) could be a big reason as to why revenge is so high and the act of forgiveness so low in crime syndicates such as these. Without more information between highly organized crime groups, much of what I think is merely an education guess.
Chapter 12 is about the relationship between revenge, forgiveness, and violence. According to the text, revenge motivates people to commit homicides, violent assaults, school shootings, enlist in terrorist organizations, etc at different rates. The author states that revenge and forgiveness have evolved to solve certain adaptive problems people experience within their lifetime. The first major section is about the evolution of revenge and the different types of revenge. The author attempts to explain a functional definition of revenge which, according to the text, relates to how one organism changes other organisms’ incentives to induce them to emit benefits and refrain from imposing costs on oneself. From what I gather, humans would not engage in behaviors such as revenge unless the mechanism that creates the revenge was supposed to give the person some sort of benefit. I felt so lost reading through this section….I can honestly say most of the text went right over my head and became one big blob by the end of the section. The chapter continues with discussion on selection pressures that promote mechanisms for revenge: direct deterrence, deterring third parties, and deterring the withholding of benefits. It makes sense that revenge has evolved over time. In my mind, I keep thinking of a situation in which someone gets out of line and another person has to put them in place because the culprit was probably going against the group’s rules/values/etc. I think in this sense, I can most relate revenge, instead of forgiveness, to organized crime. Organized crime groups are just that…organized and tedious with what they do. If one person within the group isn’t doing their job or does something completely against the group’s values, rules, etc, they’ll be kicked out on their butt or even killed depending on what they do. The bosses see the person’s mistake as a personal attack against them and the entire group and will do whatever it takes to make it right again in their minds. The next major section discusses the evolution of forgiveness. Once again, the author attempts to functionally define forgiveness and takes forever to do so (in my opinion). From what I gather, forgiveness has evolved in response to selection pressures people experience to restore damaged relationships. I can also see forgiveness in terms of an evolutionary mechanism. I think being able to forgive another person is extremely important to maintain good relationships with others. If someone is able and willing to forgive another person who did them wrong, then revenge doesn’t really come into play.
This chapter somewhat relates to my expert topic. Revenge is definitely seen within gangs, boy and girl gangs alike. When rival gang members do something to tick off the other gang such as kill one of their members, that gang will go after the rival gang’s members and kill whoever they please in order to get revenge for the initial wrongdoing. This type of situation is a back and forth process that will never stop unless gangs are willing and able to sway from their violent behaviors and attitudes and forgive wrongdoings…this will probably never happen anytime soon unfortunately .
Yep I agree with the majority of the class that this chapter was about impossible to read. I am with Angela in regards to being unsure if it is because it is the end of the semester or the chapter itself was just poorly written. Anyways, here it goes....
The chapter discussed the differences and similarities between revenge and forgiveness. The authors provided their own operational definition of each by summarizing previous research that had been completed. I believe that the main point of this chapter was to outline the evolutionary benefits of revenge and forgivenss. The text also identified some of the potential draw backs of both as well. The primary evolutionary benefit of revenge is that it decreases violence. The primary evolutionary benefit of forgiveness is to maintain communities and relationships intact. There are also identified concerns regarding revenge and forgiveness. Revenge can lead to negative interactions and can significantly interfere with the functionality of relationships. The text identifies that revenge is usually a thought out process, it is not as much of an impulsive behavior. Forgiveness can have negative implications as well because it does not frequently enhance healthy relationships. A primary differentiation identified throughout the text is that forgiveness more significantly relates to the process of repairing a relationship to maintain it and revenge has significantly less concern with relationship outcomes.
Cahpter 12 discussed revenge and forgiveness and how it can be tied to aggression and violence. The authors take several approaches to defining revenge. The ultimate premise of all the definitions is that revenge functions as a deterrence system that can change incentives of behavior by imposing costs after a perceived harm done to another. There are several different deterrent methods the author discusses. I think the type that fits most closely with the revenge seen in organized crime is direct deterrence; revenge is discouraging the other group from harming the indiviudal again. The threat of revenge prevents conflict. Within organized crime there is a certain understanding that if you leave our business and people alone, we will leave you alone. Direct deterrence is prevalent because this may prevent one group to cross another in fear of revenge.
Next, forgiveness is discussed. Forgiveness is when a victim reenters a relationship in which the relations were previously harmed. The authors state that forgiveness entails a loss of gain from revenge and undermines deterrence. So, what I think they are getting at within this discussion of revenge and forgiveness is that revenge creates a deterrence effect. It provides the other person reason to not do the act again. Forgiveness goes against this deterrence effect and gives the other room for exploitation and the loss of gains from revenge. At first, the authors portray that revenge is the better option, but then they go into the benefits of forgiveness and why revenge is not the optimal option. They state that revenge will not change behavior that will otherwise occur. Revenge may only cause more negative feelings and situations. The authors streass the importance of forgiveness because to seek revenge is to close off opportunities for growth, relationships, and a future.
This chapter discusses revenge and forgiveness as psychological functions within all humans. The two are outcomes of cost and benefit analysis based on the individual who has been wronged. The revenge aspect of this chapter did correspond to the discussion on organized crime in that there is revenge that takes place between different groups. There is seldomly forgiveness.
I agree with everyone else that this chapter was horrendous to read. This chapter discussed revenge and forgiveness. The authors take a functional approach when discussing both of these. While you think that they are completely opposite concepts, the authors argue that they are similar in that we use them to maximize benefits and minimize costs. From what I understood, I do agree that we use them for these purposes. They begin with revenge. They say that it is a system that we use to deter other people’s actions and intentions. They say it is not something we use to hurt other people because they have hurt us. Their definition makes sense, although it was hard to understand until I looked at the big picture of the chapter and not the smaller words. They say there are three kinds of revenge: direct deterrence, third party deterrence, and deterrence by withholding. Direct is where you harm someone after they have done something to you. This is supposed to make them less likely to harm you again. Third party is where having a third party present when you are harmed makes it more likely that you will retaliate. Deterrence by withholding was confusing to me but I think it is where if someone thinks you can harm them, they won’t withhold benefits.
I thought that the third party deterrence was interesting and that could definitely explain a lot of group, especially gang, violence. It is about honor and if your honor is tested, you will try to prove it, so having people watch you are more likely to need to prove it. People get you going and you are also trying to send a deterrent message to the third parties that you are capable of revenge and therefore you are trying to inhibit their behavior that may be harmful. I think that this can be tied to organized crime, such as mobs. They often are trying to send messages with their violence that the person should stop doing what they are doing. While they do use revenge to harm others because they are harmed, I think a lot of their activity is to get people off of them and show they can do it. Thus they align with the functional definition given by the authors.
They also discussed forgiveness and its function. They said that forgiveness is something you use to gain benefits. You are less likely to act upon revenge, you are more likely to be nice to someone if they have something you need, and you are less likely to avoid them. They said forgiveness is used to promote and restore beneficial relationships. If you are close to someone, you are more likely to forgive them, because they have the relationship with you that you need or something in particular that you want and need, even if it is just that closeness. If the cost of revenge is too high, or you are scared of losing benefits, you will act more with forgiveness than revenge.
I think their concept of forgiveness can also work for organized crime. If someone in the “business”, like the mob, is harmed by another person, but they need something from them, they are more likely to forgive them than to enact revenge, thus severing their benefits package. I think this goes even stronger if the people are in the same group than in opposing ones. Revenge will damage the beneficial relationship, while forgiveness may not change their motivations, but will keep the lines of communication open. I thought their explanation of forgiveness was much better written and easier to understand than their explanation of revenge. I do see how they are intertwined and not complete opposites when their functional definition is used. It actually changed how I view my actions and those around me and what actual drives me to act with retaliation or forgiveness. It is really different thinking this way than before.
Chapter 12 breaks up into 2 parts. The first is about revenge and the second is about forgiveness. The author describes revenge as a function and a product of evolution. Revenge is defined in this book as something to change other organisms’ incentives to induce them to emit benefits and refrain from imposing costs on oneself. Revenge is a survival technique. If someone does something malicious to you, getting revenge on them lets them know that you will stand up for yourself and won’t take crap. Revenge serves the purpose of deterring aggressors from harming the person who was initially harmed. The author says that humans are designed to produce revenge which means that one does not decide to get revenge. If revenge was a conscious decision, it would serve some sort of purpose now instead of an evolved survival purpose. They use the example of revenge on the road and that it serves no purpose but if I get revenge on the road I feel better. Revenge can make you feel good and powerful but the author disagrees with this. They say that we don’t accept enjoyment as an explanation for behavior of any other organism so we should not for humans. Honestly, I think the author did not need an entire chapter to talk about revenge. The idea of revenge was presented and explained and then the same things were said over and over in an overcomplicated way.
This chapter also looks at forgiveness as a functional evolutionary feature. This explanation is also very simple. The function of forgiveness is to hang on to a relationship for selfish purposes. They may provide protection, power, resources, or support. It may also be functional for someone to forgive someone who they may come in frequent contact with in the future. The author distinguishes between forgiveness and reconciliation. This means that one may be able to forgive without reconciling. I would say that this takes away from the point that is trying to be made. Saying that forgiveness is separate from reconciliation takes away from the idea that forgiveness is functional. If you forgive and don’t reconcile, then what are the benefits besides feeling better?
Overall, I’m not sure that I believe revenge and forgiveness are primarily functional evolutionary adaptations. I think that they can be used just to make you feel satisfied or even happy. This chapter might relate to my expert topic of familial influence because maybe you were taught to be more vengeful or more forgiving but I don’t think I would reference this chapter for my project.
What interested me the most was after reading the sections, you realize that people have a DESIRE to get revenge, but some hope to find the ABILITY to forgive. That's the type of world we live in. This section made me think of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., how during aggressive and painful times where revenge felt like the sweetest thing, they stressed non-violence "If you get hit, turn the other cheek." It is a fact that forgiveness not only breeds happiness, but it also reduces violence. Revenge only leads to more revenge, until things get out of hand and start a miniature war.
This family relates to Family Violence, because a lot of revenge involves family retaliation. Where I'm from, and partially what I was taught (as protection and security), when a guys younger brother gets jumped, it is his obligation to go check his brother's offenders. Usually attempting to catch each member alone to send a simple message "stay away from my little brother!" with no intentions of starting a huge fight, and a lot of times that works. But sometimes all it does is cause the guys he beat up to attempt to jump him, or depending on age go and get their older brothers to defend them. That's when unnecessary fights occur and only escalate.
This chapter actually fits pretty well with my area of expertise, just not in a direct way. A lot of rapists rape women as a form of revenge toward past negative experiences with a woman (typically their mother). Men aren't very likely to harm their mother no matter how bad of a mother they are, but their mother causes them to have an insecurity toward feeling less superior and having an issue toward women with power. So as revenge toward women in general, they rape women to feel powerful and dominant… something they were never allowed to feel at home because of psychological damage of their self-esteem.
I have to admit it… Chapter 12 was hard for me to read. I had to read some sentences 3 or 4 times to make sure I kindof understood what they were saying. So, my interpretation of the chapter may be slightly off…. But here goes!
This chapter was about revenge and forgiveness, two behaviors that seem to be completely at odds with each other. The authors argue that both are similar, though, in that we use them to minimize costs and maximize benefits to ourselves. They start with revenge, and offer a new definition than the ones that previous researchers have used. The definition they use for revenge is that it’s a deterrence system that we use to change other people’s incentives regarding both ourselves and our family/friends. We do this by causing harm to the person or by withholding benefits. (Side note, they call this a functional definition, but other researchers have used other definitions in a functional way, so I don’t see what’s so special about this.) They then divide this deterrence system called revenge into 3 different kinds: direct deterrence, third party deterrence, and deterrence by withholding. Direct deterrence is pretty much what it sounds like; someone will harm you after you’ve harmed them. There seems to be a lot of evidence for direct deterrence, but the authors managed to confuse the issue by finding studies that showed that direct deterrence increased noncooperation rather than decrease it like most studies show. Third party deterrence is revenge when someone feels their honor has been questioned. When the authors talk about third party deterrence, they mention that studies have shown that arguments in front of witnesses tend to escalate in violence more than arguments that don’t have witnesses. I learned this in another class earlier, so this wasn’t a huge surprise to me. Finally, with deterrence by withholding benefits, we learn that if someone is capable of revenge, others will be less likely to withhold benefits. To move onto forgiveness, the authors leave the definition that other authors have used (less motivation for revenge, less motivation to avoid the offender, and more motivation for good will towards said person) but add one more thing: these changes happen because they promote restoration of beneficial relationships. The authors argue that forgiveness happens mostly if the costs for revenge are too high or if the risk of losing benefits is too great. People tend to forgive two groups of people the most; people that they do not need to be around and so don’t need to get revenge against and those people that they are most close to (family and friends). Also, people who express a willingness to right a wrong they’ve committed will more easily and quickly be forgiven, especially when they offer proof of their willingness to change (like surrendering weapons).
I found myself questioning whether the authors knew what they were talking about when they discussed revenge. They throw out the part of the definition that says that revenge is about the satisfaction of harming another person (or thought of satisfaction, as revenge rarely truly satisfies anyone. If it does, the satisfaction is short-lived). They also throw out the thought that revenge is done to gain pleasure from hurting someone who has hurt you, and that people think about revenge before they commit to it. Throwing out these parts of a revenge definition makes no sense to me. I’ve never heard of someone who unconsciously plans revenge, and revenge is definitely planned. Also, part of the point of revenge is to make others suffer for what they’ve done to you, and in making others suffer, you anticipate enjoyment and satisfaction from the revenge you plan. The authors also talk about revenge as though it’s something that can be done instantly. I don’t believe that. I’ve always been taught that revenge is something that you plan, that you do not do instantly. If you were to “avenge” yourself instantly, it would be called self-defense. After all, it’s something that you do in response to something that been done to you. As far as forgiveness goes, I didn’t anything that I disagreed with, in fact, I completely agree with their continuance of separating forgiveness with reconciliation. I know from personal experience that you can forgive without wanting to continue a relationship with someone. One more thing about both forgiveness and revenge that the authors forgot about: both are choices that people make. You must choose to either seek revenge or forgiveness. Forgiveness is harder, but it’s a healthier choice.
Nothing really surprised me much in this chapter. I would say that the thing that surprised me most was not anything that has to do with the topic; rather, it the fact that they used evolution and natural selection to explain these systems, than they said that the systems were designed! And that’s not really surprising, it’s just more ironic. If something “evolved” and was promoted by natural selection, how could the system become designed? Who designed it? And when; when it was passed on? Again, has nothing to do with the topic, I just wanted to point out the irony.
As far as this week’s topic goes (organized crime) I can see where the revenge part comes in. From my understanding of organized crime (I’m thinking Mafia, maybe gangs) revenge is very common if someone insults, questions, or harms someone in the organization. However, I don’t think forgiveness comes into play, even within the organization. I believe some groups will forgive a mess-up once, but never twice. Some don’t even do that. Of course, we could say that it’s Social Darwinism at work, I suppose. But I’ve never thought that Social Darwinism was a good idea or that it worked particularly well. I suppose that, and a lack of access to organized crime, has made sure that I wouldn’t join an organized crime group. When it comes to sadistic rapists, it’s possible (even probable) that some will rape to gain a sense of revenge against others who have hurt them, but forgiveness? I’m not sure they forgive. If they did, they probably wouldn’t feel the need to hurt others, since forgiveness is all about not hurting others.
This chapter focused on the aspects of revenge and forgiveness related to our cognitive functioning. The chapter indicates that these two aspects are important to the topic of violence because revenge can lead to aggressive behavior or actions towards others. Understanding the difference between revenge and forgiveness and their effect on violence could provide a greater understanding in the study of aggression and violence.
The authors describe how revenge can be seen as a disease, and therefore, forgiveness could be the “cure” so to speak. While forgiveness can have positive therapeutic effects in certain settings, it does not necessarily mean it could be used as a cure for revenge. Both revenge and forgiveness are actions or mechanisms that are created based on psychological thought that then evolve to possible problematic behavior. The authors break down the idea of revenge as a mechanism that discourages interpersonal harm, while forgiveness is a mechanism that assists in maintaining relationships despite the harm that occurs. The functionality of both ideas is what is described in detail throughout the chapter using research and studies that have been done on both ideas.
What I found interesting about the discussion regarding revenge was the dynamics that came into play when involving a third party. Displaced aggression is discussed and defined as when a victim of some form of aggression later ends up harming a third party. The authors later indicate that this does not fit the definition of revenge because the function of revenge has not been met (the person identified as the third party is not the intended target of the aggression), and instead only a psychological process occurred toward another party. Later in the chapter the third party idea came up again, discussing how mechanisms that cause revenge are “sensitive” to third parties. It is described that when others are present to view an aggressive incident, the victim of the incident is more apt to act in revenge. This idea reminded me of some readings I have came across while studying youth violence for my expert topic. It seems that violence is often more likely when an audience is present to view an aggressive incident because the victim feels they need to fight for their respect or stand up for themselves. If they feel disrespected in front of other people, they then have to prove themselves in order to regain that respect and often they have to become even more aggressive than what the initial aggressor was to get that respect.
Forgiveness is defined as a set of changes when one’s motivation to retaliate is decreased due to maintaining the relationship or to avoid the offender. The authors explain that there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation because reconciliation is about restoring the relationship while forgiveness does not have that requirement. Forgiveness requires that the victim has to reenter the relationship in some way with offender and not wish for revengeful behavior.
The chapter contained interesting concepts relating to revenge and forgiveness, but I found this chapter difficult to read (maybe end of semester brain) and focus on. I can see how these two ideas can relate to aggression and violence in our society. As stated above, it seems that revenge is closely tied into youth violence as well. The idea of acting in a way that perpetuates vengeful behavior is a main focal point in violence among youth: proving self to others, looking tough, gaining respect, surviving one’s environment, etc. Although it may not be a cure, I could see how promoting forgiveness in our youth and teaching them the real meaning behind it and what positives it can do could assist in decreasing aggressive or violent behavior.
I don’t think I’m alone in saying this but Chapter 12 was a mess and a nightmare to read. I found it extremely convoluted and irrelevant when considering this week’s topic of Organized Crime. With that disclaimer, I digress…
The focus of Chapter 12 involved the mechanisms of revenge and forgiveness for which the authors put an evolutionary spin on these two constructs. From the get-go McCullough and his colleagues cite the importance of understanding the functions of the cognitive systems involved in revenge and forgiveness not just from a scientific standpoint, but socially as well. This is particularly true if we consider revenge as a causal factor for homicide. Revenge is also a motivating factor for individuals who decide to join terrorist organizations.
Prior to more scientific research, revenge was viewed as a “disease”. Meanwhile, forgiveness came to be viewed as a possible “cure” or solution to revenge. Empirical research proved otherwise, however. Thus, McCullough and colleagues propose that revenge and forgiveness result from distinct psychological adaptations which then evolved to solve more specific adaptive problems (p. 222). More specifically, revenge mechanisms evolved because they are successful at deterring interpersonal harms. Forgiveness mechanisms evolved because they are an efficient means to preserving valuable relationships despite those interpersonal harms.
The authors then go on to describe the evolution of both revenge and forgiveness as well as providing functional definitions of these two mechanisms. McCullough and his colleagues focused on functional definitions rather than behavioral ones due to the lack of uniformity and consistent operationalization of these two constructs throughout the social scientific literature. By providing a functional definition for revenge for instance, it then “becomes possible to search for evidence of the features- behavioral or physiological- that contribute to accomplishing the putative function” (p. 224).
According to our authors, revenge is a system of deterrence that is designed to change others’ incentives by imposing costs after harm, or withholding benefits, as well as signaling that subsequent acts will be subject to the same contingent response. Then they move on to various selection pressures that gave rise to mechanisms for revenge. These include direct deterrence, deterring third parties, and deterring the withholding of benefits. Direct deterrence is pretty straight forward: revenge will discourage an aggressor from harming the individual(s) again. One complication that may arise however, is that the entity being harmed can be intermittently vengeful. In other words, it may take more than one transgression on the part of the aggressor to elicit a vengeful response (revenge mechanism). This is where the most interesting (well, only interesting) part of the chapter comes in. Social psychological studies concerning this topic have involved various “games” in which confederates are involved. One study in particular (Diamond, 1977) conducted a study in which undergraduate men wrote an essay which was later ripped apart by a confederate. Participants were then brought back the next day and given the opportunity to give (fake) shocks to the person who had derogated their essay the day before. Half of the participants were led to believe that after giving the person shocks, the roles would be switched and they were now going to receive the shocks as well. Diamond (1977) found that the participants who believed that they could harm the insulting evaluator without the threat of retaliation gave stronger shocks to the confederate. In terms of deterring third parties, reputation plays a major role. The psychological mechanisms for revenge are sensitive to the presence of third parties. For example, victims will retaliate more strongly against their aggressor when a third party has witnessed the provocation. Felson (1982) found that “when two men get into an argument, the mere presence of a third person doubles the likelihood that the argument will escalate to a violent encounter” (p. 228).
Lastly, the authors move on to the evolution of forgiveness. Here, the authors’ functional definition of forgiveness on p. 230. They state that when the costs of revenge are too high in relation to its expected deterrence benefits, an organism may take a different approach- forgiveness. In other words, forgiveness involves primate causation. As McCullough and colleagues predict, forgiveness is generated by systems that are designed to compute and compare the cost of forgoing revenge and the benefits that are expected as a result of restoring a relationship (through forgiveness).
I don’t feel this chapter goes well with my expert topic of genocide, at least not with the evolutionary spin that was used by the authors. I am positive though that revenge does play a role in the etiology of genocide but the “cues” for lack of a better word, that elicit vengeful responses vary greatly from genocide to genocide. Forgiveness would be ideal when trying to reconcile the groups involved in genocides, however that is more of a “fairy-tale” or far-fetched idea. It’s kind of difficult to forget or forgive a group that is responsible for wiping out a large chunk of your ethnic/racial group through brutally violent means. I’m not entirely convinced forgiveness is possible given those situations.
Chapter 12 deals with revenge and the efforts to understand the functions of the cognitive systems that underlie humans’ capacities for revenge and forgiveness. The chapter also discusses the evolution of revenge, and also revenge and forgiveness as a functional framework.
The chapter starts by explaining the social aspects of revenge. I found this to be interesting, yet reasonable. The desire for revenge in developed nations is cited as a causal factor in as many as 20 percent of homicides. This came off as alarming, mainly because the only murders I hear about on the news are serial killers, or acts of violence in the Middle East. I then began to incorporate problems that could occur before the vengeful act such as infidelity between spouses and money problems. The other statistics aren’t really that alarming, such as revenge being the motive behind 61 percent of school shootings.
Revenge and forgiveness are said to be related in this chapter, yet at first I did not think so. I agree with Tasha J, when she claims that they seem to be complete opposites of each other. In relation to the social aspect of revenge, some social scientists have thought of revenge as being a psychological dysfunction, or a “revenge disease.” This led to thinking that since revenge is the disease, then forgiveness would be the cure. This would not be the case, however. Since interventions in therapeutic settings do provide reduced psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression and boost self esteem, this does not explain exactly why forgiveness is a “cure” for revenge.
The chapter also stems off of previous definitions of revenge to provide it’s own. The definition of revenge in a functional perspective is long, but provides predictions of the design features of the psychology of revenge. Revenge is also not meant to produce pleasure, rather revenge focuses on the social and beneficial aspects such as costs. They functionally define revenge as “behavior resulting from a mechanism designed to deter the imposition of costs on oneself or one’s allies by the imposition of costs following a target’s imposition of costs, where costs sand benefits are defined in terms of their effects on lifetime reproductive fitness.” The way that I interpret this definition is that people produce this behavior (revenge) in order to withhold benefits from other people in order to gain personally. This definition came off as confusing at first, but the text provided some features to explain why it works as a definition.
What interested me in this chapter was the use of third parties in revenge. Third parties in relation to revenge uses reputation to understand how it might work. The text uses ancestral humans to exemplify this. For example, they did not have or benefit from institutions protecting human rights, so they depended on their retaliation to protect their reputation. Also, it was shown that when two men get into an argument, they become more excited if there is a presence of a third person, which could lead to a violent encounter. This makes sense, since people (not necessarily meaning just men) are in an argument by themselves, then they could just stop or come to an agreement. Their honor, or ego may be at stake if there is a third person, so more violence may occur. Also, the bystander effect plays a large part in third parties. The bystander effect is when a group of people who are witnessing an argument or act of violence are less likely to help stop the argument or help the victim. If the people fighting are aware of this then that will only make them fight more because they think no one is going to stop then, therefore no one will hurt their ego.
This chapter doesn’t really relate to my expert topic, which is elder abuse. The only aspect of this chapter that I think is in relation to elder abuse is forgiveness and the expected value of the relationship in forgiveness. Since close relatives are likely to be a source of benefits, then we expect that cues of kinship will facilitate forgiveness. This in turn will restraint vengeance. If forgiveness from an elder is not present, then the likelihood of vengeance is greater, therefore acts of violence, or other abuse such as the psychological abuse behind financial abuse is present.
This chapter was less than fun to read. I figured after reading college level research papers for the past few years i could handle this text without too much hassel, but this chapter made me feel like my IQ dropped a few points. So now that I have my lesson in humility, I can move on to the subject at hand. I personally wonder if the subject of revenge should be broken down farther into types of revenge. The text attempts to discuss revenge in a way that takes out the planning and gratification of the acts. This kind of revenge seems like what we find on a playground where kid one hits kid two, so kid two strikes back to get back at kid one. It looks alot like self defence except for the fact child two is not in further danger of child one, and is reacting in a way to assure child one knows not to mess with them any more. The text explains that there should be some sort of evolutionary reason we participate in revenge behaviors. I really never thought of revenge as a biologically driven behavior because I never really thought of it with out the plotting and enjoyment aspect. I am one of those karma loving people who lets the fates take control of my paybacks, and I still find some bits of pleasure in finding karmic revenge in those I am less than pleased with... after all, whats sweeter than revenge? After mulling over the differing definitions of revenge I've decided there is room for both brands of revenge. I'm sure our cave brute ancestors used revenge to assert their place in tribe hierarchy. This makes sense in an evolutionary sense, and works with the texts view of revenge. This all brings us to the debate of forgiveness. I suppose that revenge and forgiveness are opposite ends of the spectrum, but both very necessary in a society. If we watch our little primate friends we can see the way a social group functions on a very primal level. The group head must keep his other monkey buddies in check and retaliate with revenge when they do him wrong, but those little buddies can't hold a grudge against him, he's the leader after all, he's just putting the others in their place and keeping the social structures functioning. Revenge functions as punishment often for the little monkeys that have done naughty things and forgiveness keeps things cohesive.
The topic for the week is organized crime. As was discussed in class, this is easy to tie revenge to, but i really feel as if there is much more of the plotting type of revenge going on here than the instantanious reactive revenge. Maybe I've just watched too many mob movies where they plot out who is going to get sacked. The organized crime system is... well it's organized! It's run like a business and if you don't live up to company standards you will no longer be with the company. You shouldn't cross the boss, you shouldn't cheat the company, and you definately should never share company secrets. Any damages done towards the company or it's property and associates will incur some sort of revenge from the company. Revenge is evident here, but I'm not too certain that forgiveness plays a big role... the company has a very slim list of forgivable sins.
So, I wanted to tie in my expert topic because I think revenge and forgiveness play an interesting role in sibling violence. Siblings may have many reasons to feel that revenge may be beneficial to them, if older bro gets the better bedroom, or younger sis is mommies favorite, or a disabled sibling garners more attention. Young children often at odds with eachother to feel superior and gain status, time, affection, or benefits over the others. If a child feels threatened by a sibling the opportunities for revenge are accessible through proximity and frequent exposure to the other child or their possessions. When we put forgiveness into play it gets really interesting. Parents may force a child to say sorry or attempt to talk them into forgiving a sibling. Just this morning I had to tell my daughter that he toddler brother didn't mean to tear her book, it really was an accident. She wanted revenge, she wanted to rip his favorite book. We also find in sibling settings a sort of protectiveness between siblings. Things that may result in an act of revenge from a sibling would be felt to be inappropriate by that same sibling if they were from a non-sibling person. A brother may feel fine punching his brother for saying something mean, but wouldn't tolerate his buddy punching his brother for saying the same thing. Siblings at odds can even be found getting over their arguments and forgiving eachother in order to unite against an outsider. I feel like if we want to get down to the bones of what sort of evolutionary benefit revenge and forgiveness have we could look to these sorts of relationships to provide us with an interesting view. Revenge holds benefits in ensuring commodities are not lost, and forgiveness holds benefits in allowing for creating a cohesive environment.
Chapter 12 was a really interesting, although poorly written, chapter in our handbook that focused on the nature of revenge and forgiveness in relation to violence. That author of this article tries to give a functional definition of revenge, but it is very muddled in the text. From what I gather, the definition of revenge in this section is a way to change something about another organisms' incentives that induce them to emit benefits and cease from imposing costs on the original person. The chapter then goes on to a very muddled sort of explanation of different types of revenge and selection pressures.
Finally, we get to forgiveness. The handbook defines forgiveness as a set of motivational changes wherby an organism becomes both decreasingly motivated to retaliate against an offending relationship partner and decreasingly motivated to avoid the offender and increases their desire to reconcile with their partner. This definition seemed a lot more straight-forward than the section about revenge. The handbook, from what I gathered of the ending, then goes on to talk about how the two interact.
The most interesting thing I found in this chapter, from what I could understand as it seemed like the author was going off on a ramble for the fast majority of the chapter and adding a lot of jargon, was the definition of forgiveness. It was interesting how the chapter broke the definition into three separate parts. Most people tend to think of forgiveness as just getting rid of the grudge they held onto and trying to re-establish the relationship. However, it makes much more sense that there would be more specific parts to this. Without even one of the parts the handbook mentioned as being part of forgiveness, the whole thing goes out the window and you either end up holding onto the grudge and not talking to the person again, or pretending everything is okay and ending up resenting the person or yourself. At least, that is how I see it.
I think this chapter works very well with my expert topic. Kids that are bullied sometimes feel the need to retaliate and get revenge on the kids that bullied them. However, the sad thing is that sometimes this backfires on them and the kids who were just standing up for themselves get in more trouble than the original offenders. Forgiveness also plays a role in bullying, because forgivenesse can potentially keep victims of school violence and bullying from holding onto their resentment and having it negatively impact their future. All-in-all, revenge has to do with every single one of our expert topics. When revenge comes into play, as we learned from the general aggression model, the violence will only escalate to obsene amounts.
Chapter 12 discusses revenge and forgiveness in society and how the definitions have evolved in society. The chapter had some overall interesting main theses describing why people engaged in revenge, how forgiveness is related to revenge, and how both revenge and forgiveness have consequences and causes.
As stated in the book, I found the idea of consequences for forgiveness quite surprising, because it would seem as though the ideal solvent would be to forgive a person of their wrong-doings. As stated in the book, however, this leaves people open to being seen as weak, and possible chances of a forgiving nature to be taken advantage of, which could then lead to a higher chance of revenge. Also, when discussing these topics in class, I thought the subject of forgiveness in a domestic violent case as problematic to be very true. A cycle of forgiveness from the victim to the perpetrator is ultimately a problem, and this problem is consequently very much like a bad habit, making it difficult to break. The main reason I found forgiveness as a problem so surprising is due to evolutionary definition forgiveness as amassed, which is to keep relationships and communities in tact. How could such a positive and enmeshing idea cause so many negative reactions? This is something I would have liked the chapter to go into more detail on.
What I found most interesting in the chapter was the influence of a third group in context with revenge. Studies have shown the entrance of a third party will make the likelihood of revenge between two people much higher. This sort of situation could easily be seen by anyone without needing to have higher qualifications. However, I still think this issue deserves attention because it incorporates the presence of others and how it can change the actions of others. This also seems to tie into how revenge has evolved as a definition, which is stating that people are less likely to start fights when they know the other person will do something in retaliation. However, because of another person, this increases the chances of revenge due to a myriad of reasons. The simplest explanation would be pride and wanting to save face. The presence of an individual (or group) can possibly provoke someone who originally had no real intention of planning revenge. This was described more thoroughly in the book, but the third party might insinuate cowardliness or the need for justice.
In relation to organized crime, I thought the topic of forgiveness between those who are around each other quite a bit (including family) are more likely to forgive those of their transgressions while simultaneously being less likely to engage in revenge. This does not make the chance of revenge nonexistent, but if people are to be working in close contact with one another, conflicts would not be productive. This is only useful for organizations that tend to be related however, because in a highly violent lifestyle, I would find it that people would be more willing to kill others they have known. However, taking advantage of forgiveness (as mentioned earlier) could be a big reason as to why revenge is so high and the act of forgiveness so low in crime syndicates such as these. Without more information between highly organized crime groups, much of what I think is merely an education guess.
Chapter 12 is about the relationship between revenge, forgiveness, and violence. According to the text, revenge motivates people to commit homicides, violent assaults, school shootings, enlist in terrorist organizations, etc at different rates. The author states that revenge and forgiveness have evolved to solve certain adaptive problems people experience within their lifetime. The first major section is about the evolution of revenge and the different types of revenge. The author attempts to explain a functional definition of revenge which, according to the text, relates to how one organism changes other organisms’ incentives to induce them to emit benefits and refrain from imposing costs on oneself. From what I gather, humans would not engage in behaviors such as revenge unless the mechanism that creates the revenge was supposed to give the person some sort of benefit. I felt so lost reading through this section….I can honestly say most of the text went right over my head and became one big blob by the end of the section. The chapter continues with discussion on selection pressures that promote mechanisms for revenge: direct deterrence, deterring third parties, and deterring the withholding of benefits. It makes sense that revenge has evolved over time. In my mind, I keep thinking of a situation in which someone gets out of line and another person has to put them in place because the culprit was probably going against the group’s rules/values/etc. I think in this sense, I can most relate revenge, instead of forgiveness, to organized crime. Organized crime groups are just that…organized and tedious with what they do. If one person within the group isn’t doing their job or does something completely against the group’s values, rules, etc, they’ll be kicked out on their butt or even killed depending on what they do. The bosses see the person’s mistake as a personal attack against them and the entire group and will do whatever it takes to make it right again in their minds. The next major section discusses the evolution of forgiveness. Once again, the author attempts to functionally define forgiveness and takes forever to do so (in my opinion). From what I gather, forgiveness has evolved in response to selection pressures people experience to restore damaged relationships. I can also see forgiveness in terms of an evolutionary mechanism. I think being able to forgive another person is extremely important to maintain good relationships with others. If someone is able and willing to forgive another person who did them wrong, then revenge doesn’t really come into play.
This chapter somewhat relates to my expert topic. Revenge is definitely seen within gangs, boy and girl gangs alike. When rival gang members do something to tick off the other gang such as kill one of their members, that gang will go after the rival gang’s members and kill whoever they please in order to get revenge for the initial wrongdoing. This type of situation is a back and forth process that will never stop unless gangs are willing and able to sway from their violent behaviors and attitudes and forgive wrongdoings…this will probably never happen anytime soon unfortunately .
Yep I agree with the majority of the class that this chapter was about impossible to read. I am with Angela in regards to being unsure if it is because it is the end of the semester or the chapter itself was just poorly written. Anyways, here it goes....
The chapter discussed the differences and similarities between revenge and forgiveness. The authors provided their own operational definition of each by summarizing previous research that had been completed. I believe that the main point of this chapter was to outline the evolutionary benefits of revenge and forgivenss. The text also identified some of the potential draw backs of both as well. The primary evolutionary benefit of revenge is that it decreases violence. The primary evolutionary benefit of forgiveness is to maintain communities and relationships intact. There are also identified concerns regarding revenge and forgiveness. Revenge can lead to negative interactions and can significantly interfere with the functionality of relationships. The text identifies that revenge is usually a thought out process, it is not as much of an impulsive behavior. Forgiveness can have negative implications as well because it does not frequently enhance healthy relationships. A primary differentiation identified throughout the text is that forgiveness more significantly relates to the process of repairing a relationship to maintain it and revenge has significantly less concern with relationship outcomes.
Cahpter 12 discussed revenge and forgiveness and how it can be tied to aggression and violence. The authors take several approaches to defining revenge. The ultimate premise of all the definitions is that revenge functions as a deterrence system that can change incentives of behavior by imposing costs after a perceived harm done to another. There are several different deterrent methods the author discusses. I think the type that fits most closely with the revenge seen in organized crime is direct deterrence; revenge is discouraging the other group from harming the indiviudal again. The threat of revenge prevents conflict. Within organized crime there is a certain understanding that if you leave our business and people alone, we will leave you alone. Direct deterrence is prevalent because this may prevent one group to cross another in fear of revenge.
Next, forgiveness is discussed. Forgiveness is when a victim reenters a relationship in which the relations were previously harmed. The authors state that forgiveness entails a loss of gain from revenge and undermines deterrence. So, what I think they are getting at within this discussion of revenge and forgiveness is that revenge creates a deterrence effect. It provides the other person reason to not do the act again. Forgiveness goes against this deterrence effect and gives the other room for exploitation and the loss of gains from revenge. At first, the authors portray that revenge is the better option, but then they go into the benefits of forgiveness and why revenge is not the optimal option. They state that revenge will not change behavior that will otherwise occur. Revenge may only cause more negative feelings and situations. The authors streass the importance of forgiveness because to seek revenge is to close off opportunities for growth, relationships, and a future.
This chapter discusses revenge and forgiveness as psychological functions within all humans. The two are outcomes of cost and benefit analysis based on the individual who has been wronged. The revenge aspect of this chapter did correspond to the discussion on organized crime in that there is revenge that takes place between different groups. There is seldomly forgiveness.
I agree with everyone else that this chapter was horrendous to read. This chapter discussed revenge and forgiveness. The authors take a functional approach when discussing both of these. While you think that they are completely opposite concepts, the authors argue that they are similar in that we use them to maximize benefits and minimize costs. From what I understood, I do agree that we use them for these purposes. They begin with revenge. They say that it is a system that we use to deter other people’s actions and intentions. They say it is not something we use to hurt other people because they have hurt us. Their definition makes sense, although it was hard to understand until I looked at the big picture of the chapter and not the smaller words. They say there are three kinds of revenge: direct deterrence, third party deterrence, and deterrence by withholding. Direct is where you harm someone after they have done something to you. This is supposed to make them less likely to harm you again. Third party is where having a third party present when you are harmed makes it more likely that you will retaliate. Deterrence by withholding was confusing to me but I think it is where if someone thinks you can harm them, they won’t withhold benefits.
I thought that the third party deterrence was interesting and that could definitely explain a lot of group, especially gang, violence. It is about honor and if your honor is tested, you will try to prove it, so having people watch you are more likely to need to prove it. People get you going and you are also trying to send a deterrent message to the third parties that you are capable of revenge and therefore you are trying to inhibit their behavior that may be harmful. I think that this can be tied to organized crime, such as mobs. They often are trying to send messages with their violence that the person should stop doing what they are doing. While they do use revenge to harm others because they are harmed, I think a lot of their activity is to get people off of them and show they can do it. Thus they align with the functional definition given by the authors.
They also discussed forgiveness and its function. They said that forgiveness is something you use to gain benefits. You are less likely to act upon revenge, you are more likely to be nice to someone if they have something you need, and you are less likely to avoid them. They said forgiveness is used to promote and restore beneficial relationships. If you are close to someone, you are more likely to forgive them, because they have the relationship with you that you need or something in particular that you want and need, even if it is just that closeness. If the cost of revenge is too high, or you are scared of losing benefits, you will act more with forgiveness than revenge.
I think their concept of forgiveness can also work for organized crime. If someone in the “business”, like the mob, is harmed by another person, but they need something from them, they are more likely to forgive them than to enact revenge, thus severing their benefits package. I think this goes even stronger if the people are in the same group than in opposing ones. Revenge will damage the beneficial relationship, while forgiveness may not change their motivations, but will keep the lines of communication open. I thought their explanation of forgiveness was much better written and easier to understand than their explanation of revenge. I do see how they are intertwined and not complete opposites when their functional definition is used. It actually changed how I view my actions and those around me and what actual drives me to act with retaliation or forgiveness. It is really different thinking this way than before.
Chapter 12 breaks up into 2 parts. The first is about revenge and the second is about forgiveness. The author describes revenge as a function and a product of evolution. Revenge is defined in this book as something to change other organisms’ incentives to induce them to emit benefits and refrain from imposing costs on oneself. Revenge is a survival technique. If someone does something malicious to you, getting revenge on them lets them know that you will stand up for yourself and won’t take crap. Revenge serves the purpose of deterring aggressors from harming the person who was initially harmed. The author says that humans are designed to produce revenge which means that one does not decide to get revenge. If revenge was a conscious decision, it would serve some sort of purpose now instead of an evolved survival purpose. They use the example of revenge on the road and that it serves no purpose but if I get revenge on the road I feel better. Revenge can make you feel good and powerful but the author disagrees with this. They say that we don’t accept enjoyment as an explanation for behavior of any other organism so we should not for humans. Honestly, I think the author did not need an entire chapter to talk about revenge. The idea of revenge was presented and explained and then the same things were said over and over in an overcomplicated way.
This chapter also looks at forgiveness as a functional evolutionary feature. This explanation is also very simple. The function of forgiveness is to hang on to a relationship for selfish purposes. They may provide protection, power, resources, or support. It may also be functional for someone to forgive someone who they may come in frequent contact with in the future. The author distinguishes between forgiveness and reconciliation. This means that one may be able to forgive without reconciling. I would say that this takes away from the point that is trying to be made. Saying that forgiveness is separate from reconciliation takes away from the idea that forgiveness is functional. If you forgive and don’t reconcile, then what are the benefits besides feeling better?
Overall, I’m not sure that I believe revenge and forgiveness are primarily functional evolutionary adaptations. I think that they can be used just to make you feel satisfied or even happy. This chapter might relate to my expert topic of familial influence because maybe you were taught to be more vengeful or more forgiving but I don’t think I would reference this chapter for my project.
Freebee!
What interested me the most was after reading the sections, you realize that people have a DESIRE to get revenge, but some hope to find the ABILITY to forgive. That's the type of world we live in. This section made me think of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., how during aggressive and painful times where revenge felt like the sweetest thing, they stressed non-violence "If you get hit, turn the other cheek." It is a fact that forgiveness not only breeds happiness, but it also reduces violence. Revenge only leads to more revenge, until things get out of hand and start a miniature war.
This family relates to Family Violence, because a lot of revenge involves family retaliation. Where I'm from, and partially what I was taught (as protection and security), when a guys younger brother gets jumped, it is his obligation to go check his brother's offenders. Usually attempting to catch each member alone to send a simple message "stay away from my little brother!" with no intentions of starting a huge fight, and a lot of times that works. But sometimes all it does is cause the guys he beat up to attempt to jump him, or depending on age go and get their older brothers to defend them. That's when unnecessary fights occur and only escalate.
This chapter actually fits pretty well with my area of expertise, just not in a direct way. A lot of rapists rape women as a form of revenge toward past negative experiences with a woman (typically their mother). Men aren't very likely to harm their mother no matter how bad of a mother they are, but their mother causes them to have an insecurity toward feeling less superior and having an issue toward women with power. So as revenge toward women in general, they rape women to feel powerful and dominant… something they were never allowed to feel at home because of psychological damage of their self-esteem.