Could Retaliation and Revenge Be Adaptive 'Superpowers'?

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that if a set of behaviors—including social behaviors—meet certain criteria, it is reasonable to hypothesize that they evolved because they were, and may still be, adaptive. They argue that cognition-emotion-behavior systems, including social cognition-emotion-behavior systems, are likely products of evolution and were, and perhaps still are, adaptive when they:

1. Appear universally across individuals and cultures.
2. Are brain-based (e.g., showing changes after injury or experimental manipulation).
3. Have a genetic component (e.g., frequency and intensity run in families).
4. Vary across individuals (e.g., more or less frequent or intense).
5. Follow developmental pathways that are similar across people and cultures.
6. Are observed in nonhuman primates and perhaps other group-living mammals.
7. Can plausibly be linked to enhanced survival and reproduction in ancestral environments.

This evolutionary psychology perspective strongly suggests that both prosocial behaviors (e.g., empathy, caregiving, cooperation) and antisocial ones (e.g., blame, competition, aggression) can be understood as evolved and adaptive (in the past, perhaps at times in the present) features of human nature.

Even Revenge May Be Evolved and Adaptive

McCullough, Kurzban, and Tabak (2011) explore what many might think of as an extreme example of this evolutionary psychology perspective on "antisocial" behaviors: retaliation and revenge. They hypothesize that natural selection gave rise to retaliation and revenge as "deterrence systems" in humans.

They define direct deterrence as revenge that “discourages aggressors from harming the avenger a second time.” Revenge “can change the potential aggressor’s incentives to repeat an unwanted action" (e.g., physical or interpersonal aggression, taking or removing access to material resources). They cite behavioral economics and social psychology experiments that “... show how the prospect of suffering revenge can deter aggressors from harming the prospective avenger.”

They also discuss the role of revenge in deterring third parties. They write that:

• “Mechanisms for revenge may have been naturally selected for their efficacy in deterring would-be aggressors by virtue of the revenge’s ability to signal the avenger’s aggressive potential.”
• “Ancestral humans lived in small, close-knit groups ... without the benefit of institutions for protecting individual rights, so a readiness to retaliate against interpersonal harms might have been an important component of people’s social reputations.”

They also discuss how "... mechanisms for revenge might have been naturally selected because of their efficacy in changing others behavior to increase the delivery of benefits (as opposed to only reducing harm).”

What About Forgiveness?

Revenge may have benefits in relationships and group living but it also may have costs. It may, with someone who is not deterred, lead to escalating conflicts in which more and more harm is incurred by both parties. It may also end potentially valuable relationships and thus access to physical and social resources.

McCollough et al. (2011) reason that: “... modern humans are capable of forgiving because ancestral humans who deployed this strategy enjoyed the fitness benefits that came from restoring potentially valuable relationships.”

And note that studies of many mammals postconflict conciliatory behaviors include findings that: “It is in relationships in which substantial potential fitness gains are possible (e.g., kin, mates, allies, exchange partners) that forgiveness and/or reconciliation appear most common among nonhuman animals."

And suggest that: “Social organisms will also undergo selection pressure for forgiveness in the context of cooperation between nonrelatives when repeated encounters are likely.”

Revenge vs. Forgiveness: A Balancing Act

In the end, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, it is a (cost-benefit) balancing act. Both forgiveness and revenge can involve benefits and costs. Forgiveness can facilitate reentering a relationship within which we have been harmed, thus perhaps facilitating access to benefits and resources. Forgiveness does, though, involve foregoing revenge and revenge’s deterrent effects. Forgiveness can invite recidivism and ongoing exploitation.

Evolutionary Psychology Essential Reads

The Ecology of Curiosity

But We Shook on It!

McCullough et al. hypothesize that if: "... forgiveness systems are sensitive to tradeoffs associated with sacrificing the deterrence benefits of revenge for the relationship restoration benefits of forgiveness, then such systems should be acutely sensitive to variables that influence the values of each option. These variables include, but are not necessarily limited to, characteristics of the offender, the transgression itself, and cues that predict the probabilities of future attacks and/or the potential value of the restored relationship."

The 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility’ Approach

When I work with children and teens who have been referred because they tend to be overly angry or even aggressive, I often frame their relatively high levels of anger and aggression, their tendency to quickly and automatically detect harm and retaliate or seek revenge, as universal, evolved, and adaptive "superpowers."

I also note, though, as has been repeated in multiple Spiderman movies, “with great power comes great responsibility.” When, where, and how much matters—to the other person, of course, but also to the patient.

This evolutionary psychology framing tends to help my patients not feel blamed or judged by me, to feel better about themselves, and to be more open to exploring themselves and experimenting with new behaviors.

I try to help children and adolescents get better at "reading" or "mentalizing" themselves, the other person, and the situation.

We may talk through the short- and long-term consequences, with various people and situations, of retaliation and revenge.

We might explore reasons it might be wise to "stop and think," use your "chess brain" or "gaming brain," and think a couple of steps ahead, before acting—and develop individualized strategies for "slowing things down."

We might ask: Does the transgressor apologize, express sympathy, and/or state they intend to behave better next time? Do they state, or does it seem that, their behavior was unintentional, or was committed without awareness of potential negative consequences? These factors might indicate a low likelihood of future harm.

And we discuss how, if repairing rather than foregoing a relationship makes sense, experimenting with forgiveness may be worth a try—and develop and practice specific forgiveness scripts.

Setting boundaries to protect oneself, even sometimes by using retaliation and revenge, are important social skills. Repairing relationships using acceptance and forgiveness are important social skills as well.