Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Vindictiveness: Psychological Aspects by a Reliability and Validity Study of the Vengeance Scale in the Italian Context

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vengeance can be commonly defined as the disposition towards the infliction of harm in return for perceived injury or insult or as simply getting back at another person. This paper describes a contribution to the Italian validation of the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless and Goranson, Journal of social Behavior and Personality 7: 25–42, 1992) following the same steps of the original authors and shows psychological implications of vindictive behavior. 377 under-graduate students responded to the Big Five Questionnaire, State Trait Anger Expression Inventory and a back-translated Italian version of the Vengeance Scale (IVS). The IVS shows good psychometric properties. Convergent validity is shown by correlations with crucially connected variables (anger, empathy, social desirability). Factorial analysis suggested that the IVS is basically a one-dimensional measure. Regression analysis reveals that empathy, anger and emotional stability are significant predictors of vengeance. General results show that the IVS is a good instrument of evaluation of the tendency to be vindictive. Statistic analysis highlights that specific personality traits are involved in vindictive behavior; furthermore the interactions between some features of subject and the environment appear determinant. The implications and utility of the IVS in future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the Corbetta’s opinion (1992) a relationship among the errors means admitting the inadequacy of the model.

  2. Anger as a state, anger as a trait, anger-prone temperament, anger reaction, anger directed outside, expression of anger, and, negatively, with anger control.

References

  • Anolli, L. (2011). La sfida della mente multiculturale [The challenge of multicultural mind]. Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. (1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York: Freeman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, M. J. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to sorgive: construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Behaviour Bulletin, 29, 759–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2004). Vengeance is mine: narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 576–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calati, R., Oasi, O., De Ronchi, D., & Serretti, A. (2010). The use of the defence style questionnaire in major depressive and panic disorders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 83, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G.V. (2004). Lesson and digressions from clinical practice. PsycCritiques. Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 2002, 47, 180–184.

  • Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big five questionnaire. Florence: Organizzazioni Speciali.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Cermak, I., & Rosza, S. (2001). Facing guilt: role of negative affectivity, need for reparation, and fear of punishment in leading to prosocial behaviour and aggression. European Journal of Personality, 15, 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelnuovo, G., Gaggioli, A., Mantovani, F., & Riva, G. (2003). From psychotherapy to e-therapy: the integration of traditional techniques and new communication tools in clinical settings. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(4), 375–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNelly & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, R. (1994). The temperament and character inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis: Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L. (1967). Tandem criteria for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psicometrika, 32, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comunian, A. L. (1992). STAXI. State Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Versione e Adattamento Italiano. Florence: Organizzazioni Speciali.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, P. (1992). Metodi di analisi multivariata per le scienze sociali. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The neo personality inventory manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, M. (1969). Pathological vindictiveness and the vindictive character. The Psychoanalitic Review, 56, 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Behaviour Bulletin, 30, 787–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, R. A. (2000). Personality and forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 156–175). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 3, 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, K. (1948). The value of vindictiveness. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 8, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wau, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kancyper, L. (2003). Il risentimento e il rimorso: Uno studio psicoanalitico [The resentment and the remorse: A psychoanalytic study]. Milan: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. R. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. C. (1995). The revenge motive: a developmental perspective on the life cycle and the treatment process. Psychoanalytic Review, 82, 41–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefullness: relationship with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003). Narcissists as “Victims”: the role of narcissism in the perception of transgressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oasi, O., & Massaro, F. (2004). Vendicatività e vendetta. Perchè a volte non sappiamo dimenticare [Vindictiveness and Revenge. Why is difficult let go on sometimes?]. Milan: Unicopli.

  • Socarides, C. W. (1966). On vengeance: the desire to get even. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 356–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger, C. D. (1988). STAXI State-Traite Anger Expression Inventory. Tampa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. (PAR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, J. (1993). Psychic retreats. Pathological organizations in psychotic, neurotic and borderline patients. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of social Behaviuor and Personality, 7, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, R. E. (1994). Reliability for the social sciences. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. J., Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism and empathy: validity evidence for the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159–162.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. e-Campus University, Novedrate, CO, Italy

    Simona Ruggi

  2. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, Milan, Italy

    Gabriella Gilli & Osmano Oasi

  3. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Noreen Stuckless

  4. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy

    Osmano Oasi

Authors
  1. Simona Ruggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella Gilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noreen Stuckless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Osmano Oasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osmano Oasi.

Appendix

Appendix

Vengeange Scale

English Version

INSTRUCTIONS

Below there are a number of statements that describe attitudes in different people. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions.

For every statement, please:

  1. a.

    Read the statement

  2. b.

    Decide whether you agree or disagree using the following scale:

    1. 1.

      Disagree strongly

    2. 2.

      Disagree

    3. 3.

      Disagree slightly

    4. 4.

      Neither disagree nor degree

    5. 5.

      Agree slightly

    6. 6.

      Agree

    7. 7.

      Agree strongly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It’s not worth my time or effort to pay back someone who has wronged me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is important to me to get back at people who have hurt me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I try to even the score with anyone who hurts me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is always better not to seek vengeance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I live by the motto “Let bygones be bygones”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There is nothing wrong in getting back at someone who has hurt you

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I don’t just get mad, I get even

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I find it easy to forgive those who have hurt me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am not a vengeful person

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe in the motto “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Revenge is morally wrong

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If someone causes me trouble, I’ll find a way to make them regret it

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 People who insist on getting revenge are disgusting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I am wronged, I can’t live with myself unless I get revenge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Honour requires that you get back at someone who has hurt you

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is usually better to show mercy than to take revenge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Anyone who provokes me deserves the punishment that I give them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is always better to “turn the other cheek”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To have a desire for vengeance would make me feel ashamed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Revenge is sweet

Vengeange Scale

Italian Version

ISTRUZIONI

Qui sotto trovi delle affermazioni che descrivono gli atteggiamenti delle persone. Non ci sono risposte giuste o sbagliate, solo punti di vista . Per ogni affermazione:

  1. c.

    Leggila attentamente

  2. d.

    Decidi se sei d’accordo o se sei in disaccordo, seguendo la seguente scala

  3. 1.

    Completamente in disaccordo

  4. 2.

    In disaccordo

  5. 3.

    Leggermente in disaccordo

  6. 4.

    Ne’ d’accordo ne’ in disaccordo

  7. 5.

    Leggermente d’accordo

  8. 6.

    D’accordo

  9. 7.

    Completamente d’accordo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Per me è importante rendere pan per focaccia alle persone che mi hanno ferito.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cerco di pareggiare i conti con chiunque mi ferisca.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E’ sempre meglio non ricercare la vendetta.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non c’è nulla di sbagliato nel ripagare con la stessa moneta chi ti ha ferito.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Invece di starci male, io pareggio i conti.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trovo facile perdonare quelli che mi hanno ferito.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Io non sono una persona vendicativa.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Io credo nel motto “occhio per occhio, dente per dente”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 La vendetta è moralmente sbagliata.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Se uno mi causa un problema, se ne pentirà.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Le persone che persistono nel volersi vendicare sono ripugnanti.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Se vengo trattato ingiustamente, non riesco a vivere fino a quando non mi vendico.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L’onore esige che uno renda pan per focaccia a chi lo ha ferito.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Di solito è meglio mostrare pietà che vendicarsi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chi mi provoca merita la mia punizione.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E’ sempre meglio “porgere l’altra guancia”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volermi vendicare mi farebbe vergognare di me stesso.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 La vendetta è dolce.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruggi, S., Gilli, G., Stuckless, N. et al. Assessing Vindictiveness: Psychological Aspects by a Reliability and Validity Study of the Vengeance Scale in the Italian Context. Curr Psychol 31, 365–380 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9153-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9153-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation