Synonyms
Definition
Action taken in return for an injury or offense.
Introduction
The concept of retaliation has historically been defined from both a behavioral and functional aspect. At its core, retaliation is based upon the premise of inciting organisms to increase benefit while reducing cost to oneself (McCullough et al. 2013). If a target organism can emit the potential ideal for retaliation toward an aggressor organism (typically in the form of retaliation itself), the target organism may increase its chances of lifetime productivity and may continue to evolve due to this willingness to retaliate. In other words, by making the potential costs of harm too high for an aggressor (imminent retaliation), the target organism is more likely to survive by avoiding harm against oneself.
Definitions that have previously influenced academics in the conceptualization of retaliation have typically been defined from a functional prospective. The O...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Adams, S. J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bixenstine, V. E., & Wilson, K. V. (1963). Effects of level of cooperative choice by the other player on choices in a prisoner’s dilemma game. Part II. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 139–147.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment and animal societies. Nature, 373, 209–216.
Diamond, S. R. (1977). The effect of fear on the aggressive responses of anger aroused and revenge motivated subjects. Journal of Psychology, 95, 185–188.
Figueredo, A. J. (1995). Preliminary report: Family deterrence of domestic violence in Spain. Tucson: Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.
Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. New York: Routledge.
Hayashi, N., Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Yamagishi, T. (1999). Reciprocity, trust, and the sense of control: Across-societal study. Rationality and Society, 11, 27–46.
Kim, S. H., & Smith, R. H., (1993). Revenge and conflict escalation. Negotiation Journal, 9, 37–43.
Kim, S. H., Smith, R. H., & Brigham, N. L. (1998). Effects of power imbalance and the presence of third parties on reactions to harm: Upward and downward revenge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 353–361.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2008). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In P. R. Shaver and M. Milulincer (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression, violence, and their consequences (221–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160.
Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1193–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17519004.2010.00322.
Uniacke, S. (2000). Why is revenge wrong? The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34, 61–69.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Mims, B. (2021). Ability and Willingness of Victim to Retaliate. In: Shackelford, T.K., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1666
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1666
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19649-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19650-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences