Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Revenge

one px

Essays on Revenge

Hook examples for revenge essays, "the temptation of revenge" hook.

"Revenge has often been described as a dish best served cold, but what tempts individuals to seek vengeance? Explore the psychological and moral complexities that surround the concept of revenge."

"From Shakespeare to Contemporary Fiction" Hook

"Revenge is a recurring theme in literature, from Shakespearean tragedies to modern thrillers. Compare and contrast the portrayal of revenge in classic and contemporary fiction."

"Revenge in Real Life: Stories of Retribution" Hook

"Revenge is not limited to the pages of fiction. Share real-life stories of individuals who sought revenge and analyze the consequences of their actions on themselves and others."

"The Vengeful Antihero" Hook

"From classic literature to blockbuster films, antiheroes often seek revenge as a central motive. Explore the complex character of the vengeful antihero and their journey toward redemption or destruction."

"Justice vs. Revenge: Ethical Dilemmas" Hook

"Is revenge a form of justice or a moral failing? Examine the ethical dilemmas surrounding revenge, the role of the legal system, and the potential for reconciliation."

"Breaking the Cycle of Revenge" Hook

"Revenge can perpetuate a cycle of violence. Investigate strategies for breaking this cycle, promoting forgiveness, and finding alternative paths to justice and resolution."

"The Psychology of Revenge: Unmasking Motives" Hook

"Psychologists have studied the motives behind revenge. Dive into the psychology of revenge, examining factors such as anger, humiliation, and the desire for retribution."

The Complexities of Revenge: Ethics, Consequences, and Alternatives

The theme of revenge in shakesphere's book hamlet, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Edgar Allan Poe’s Description of The Topic of Vengeance as Illustrated in His Book, The Cask of Amontillado

Hamlet: revenge as the major force that drives the play, nature of revenge in the novel the frankenstein, the theme of justice versus retribution and revenge in "the crucible" by arthur miller, let us write you an essay from scratch.

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Revenge and Justice in The Count of Monte Cristo

Justification of revenge: are hamlet's actions justified, the motives of revenge in hamlet, sympathy and objectification in the revenge tragedy genre, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

An Analysis of The Theme of Revenge in Hamlet by William Shakespeare

An analysis of the theme of revenge in the play hamlet by william shakespeare, revenge and desire in prometheus and frankenstein, reality and appearance: a comparison of hamlet and the revenger"s tragedy, the main idea in "of revenge" by francis bacon, a view of the continuous vengeance in sherman alexie’s book, flight, the main topic of vengeance, fairness and fate as described by iliad in the poem, homer, the theme of revenge in frankenstein by mary shelley , death and revenge in hamlet, a play by william shakespeare, lack of justice leading to an outdated way of revenge, revenge and justice in "wuthering heights" by emily bronte, women's use of deception in "medea", "the book of judith" and "the ecclesiazusae", multiple perspectives in "agamemnon" by aeschylus, the harmful results of vengeance as depicted in nathaniel hawthorne's book the scarlet letter, statements opposing vengeance in william shakespeare's hamlet, "just and sharp revenge": the question of underworld justice in "the spanish tragedy", political themes in shakespeare's hamlet, tessie's revenge in "the lottery" a short story by shirley jackson, an examination of "intimate revenge" in seamus heaney’s "punishment", middleton’s parosy on a revenge tragedy in "the revenger’s tragedy", relevant topics.

  • European Union
  • Gentrification
  • International Relations
  • Government Surveillance
  • Philippine Government
  • Homeland Security
  • United Nations
  • Foreign Policy
  • Corporate Governance

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

introduction revenge essay

  • Entertainment
  • Environment
  • Information Science and Technology
  • Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Law

Essay Samples on Revenge

Revenge, at its core, is the act of seeking retaliation for a perceived injustice or harm. It stems from a primal human instinct to restore balance and redress wrongs. The desire for revenge often emerges from feelings of anger, betrayal, or a sense of injustice, compelling individuals to take matters into their own hands.

In the realm of literature and mythology, revenge has been a recurring theme, inspiring some of the most memorable characters and stories. From Shakespeare’s Hamlet seeking vengeance for his father’s murder to Alexandre Dumas’ iconic Count of Monte Cristo plotting his elaborate revenge scheme, these tales exemplify the enduring fascination with the intricate workings of retribution.

How to Write an Essay on Revenge

When crafting an essay on revenge, it is essential to explore the various dimensions and consequences of this primal urge. You may examine the psychological toll revenge takes on individuals, the ethical considerations surrounding acts of revenge, or the societal impact of perpetuating cycles of violence in revenge essay example.

Furthermore, consider exploring the ways in which revenge has been depicted in different cultural contexts. Analyze the rituals and codes of honor in ancient civilizations, such as the concept of an eye for an eye in Hammurabi’s Code, or the vendettas of medieval Europe. Additionally, examine how revenge is portrayed in contemporary media, including films, television series, and literature, and the influence it has on popular culture.

To make your revenge essay compelling and well-rounded, draw from a variety of disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, philosophy, and literature. Incorporate relevant theories and concepts, such as Freud’s concept of the “repetition compulsion” or Nietzsche’s exploration of the will to power.

Explore our collection of meticulously curated revenge essays, which encompass a wide range of perspectives, historical analyses, and literary interpretations.

The Power of Revenge, a Virtuous, Ethical and Principled Man I

Sanctimonious hypocrisy, causing one to commit an even greater wrong than the one they seek vengeance for, consumes them with the desire for revenge. Caused by the desire to seek vengeance and punish someone who has caused internal or external pain to one or someone...

  • Ethical Dilemma

Form of Abuse, Bully or Revenge or Domestic Violence

The essence of the word “pornography” is obtained from the Greek language, i.e. “Porne and graphos”. The word “porne” comes from the meanings, a captive who is a female or a harlot or a prostitute. While the word “graphos” is “writing with regard to” or...

  • Domestic Violence

Motivation Of People Seeking For Revenge

People tend to become extremely motivated in the pursuit of seeking out revenge on others for various reasons. From something mediocre to an extreme. Revenge is the forceful desire to inflict hurt or harm to another for a wrong suffered at their hands or just...

The Powers Of Revenge And Forgiveness

The novel A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah, is a memoir about himself, sharing his harrowing experience as a child growing up and his struggle for survival in Sierra Leone. The unthinkable happened in his village, Mattru Jong. The civil war occurred out of...

  • A Long Way Gone

Representation of the Theme of Revenge Through the Characters in Beowulf

In the epic poem Beowulf, there is one prominent way that virtually every major character can be compared: the actions that they take against one another are caused by a desire for revenge due to events in the past. Each of the three primary monsters...

  • Beowulf Hero

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

  • 100% unique papers
  • 3 hrs deadline option

Revenge and Injustice in King Lear's Society

In William Shakespeare's renowned tragedy, King Lear, the theme of revenge against society is explored through the character of Edmund. As the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester, Edmund is often belittled and mistreated due to his birth. This mistreatment fuels his bitterness towards...

Exploration of the Theme of Revenge in Shakeapeare's Play Hamlet

Shakespeare's tragedy, Hamlet, is renowned for its compelling exploration of the theme of revenge. Through the character of Hamlet himself, Shakespeare delves into the complex and multifaceted nature of revenge, showcasing its psychological and moral implications. This essay examines how Shakespeare skillfully portrays revenge in...

  • Hamlet Revenge

The Destructive Nature of Revenge in Shakespeare's "Macbeth"

The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare delves into the theme of revenge and its impact on the characters, particularly Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Macduff. The story shows how revenge serves as a powerful motivator that ultimately leads to tragic consequences. This essay aims to explore...

  • William Shakespeare

Medea Occur Without Just Explanation

Many actions in Euripides’ Medea. The psychology behind these actions appear unpredictable, but still control key parts of the play. The play begins with a heartbroken Medea, angry and depressed because her husband, Jason, has left her for a new bride. However, the rage Medea...

Best topics on Revenge

1. The Power of Revenge, a Virtuous, Ethical and Principled Man I

2. Form of Abuse, Bully or Revenge or Domestic Violence

3. Motivation Of People Seeking For Revenge

4. The Powers Of Revenge And Forgiveness

5. Representation of the Theme of Revenge Through the Characters in Beowulf

6. Revenge and Injustice in King Lear’s Society

7. Exploration of the Theme of Revenge in Shakeapeare’s Play Hamlet

8. The Destructive Nature of Revenge in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”

9. Medea Occur Without Just Explanation

  • First Amendment
  • Criminal Law
  • Cyber Crime
  • Social Justice

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Logo

Essay on Revenge

Students are often asked to write an essay on Revenge in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Revenge

Understanding revenge.

Revenge is when someone hurts you and you want to hurt them back. It’s a strong feeling that can make people do bad things. It’s like a fire inside you that burns until you do something about it. It’s not a good feeling and can make you feel worse.

Why People Seek Revenge

People often seek revenge when they feel wronged. They feel hurt and think that hurting the person who hurt them will make them feel better. They want to make the other person feel the same pain they felt. But, this doesn’t usually work.

Effects of Revenge

Revenge can make a situation worse. It can start fights and make people hate each other. It doesn’t solve the problem, it just makes more problems. It can also make you feel bad about yourself. It’s better to talk about your feelings instead.

Alternatives to Revenge

Instead of seeking revenge, try to forgive. Forgiveness can help you feel better and move on. You can also talk to the person who hurt you and tell them how you feel. This can help you understand each other better and solve the problem.

Revenge is not the best way to deal with hurt. It only makes things worse. Forgiveness and understanding are better options. They can help you feel better and solve problems. Remember, revenge is a fire that burns you from inside.

250 Words Essay on Revenge

Revenge is a strong feeling that makes a person want to hurt someone who has caused them pain. It is a common reaction when someone feels wronged or treated unfairly. Revenge can be seen in many ways, like fights between friends, wars between countries, or even in stories and movies.

The Cycle of Revenge

The problem with revenge is that it often leads to a cycle. This means that one act of revenge leads to another, and then another. For example, if a person hurts you, and you hurt them back, they might want to hurt you again. This can go on and on, causing more pain and damage.

Revenge and Emotions

Revenge is often driven by strong emotions like anger and hatred. These feelings can cloud a person’s thinking, making it hard for them to see the right thing to do. This is why revenge often leads to bad choices and actions.

Instead of seeking revenge, it is better to seek justice. Justice is about making sure that the person who did wrong faces the right consequences. This is usually done by the law. It is also important to learn to forgive. Forgiving does not mean forgetting the wrong that was done. It means choosing to let go of the anger and pain, and moving on.

In conclusion, revenge may seem like a good idea when we are hurt. But it often leads to more harm than good. It is better to seek justice and to learn to forgive. This way, we can break the cycle of revenge and live in peace.

500 Words Essay on Revenge

What is revenge.

Revenge is the act of hurting someone because they have hurt you. It is a way of getting back at someone for something bad they did to you. Sometimes, people feel that they need to take revenge to make things right or to make the other person feel the pain they felt.

Why do People Seek Revenge?

People often seek revenge because they feel hurt, angry, or betrayed. They believe that making the other person suffer will help them feel better. This feeling can be very strong, especially if the person who hurt them did something really bad. It’s like a fire burning inside them that can only be put out by getting revenge.

Does Revenge Solve Problems?

Although revenge might seem like a good idea at first, it usually doesn’t solve any problems. In fact, it often makes things worse. When you hurt someone because they hurt you, it can start a cycle of hurt that goes back and forth without end. This can lead to more pain and suffering for everyone involved.

Revenge and its Impact on Relationships

Revenge can also harm relationships. When you take revenge on someone, it can damage your relationship with them. It can create feelings of anger, hate, and distrust that are hard to heal. Even if you feel better in the short term, in the long run, it can leave you feeling empty and alone.

Instead of seeking revenge, there are other ways to deal with hurt and anger. One way is to talk about your feelings with the person who hurt you. This can help you understand each other better and might even lead to an apology. Another way is to forgive. Forgiveness is not about letting someone off the hook for what they did. It’s about letting go of your anger and hurt so that you can move on. It’s about choosing peace over pain.

In conclusion, revenge is a strong feeling that comes from being hurt or betrayed. While it might seem like a good idea at the time, it often leads to more problems than it solves. It can harm relationships and create a cycle of hurt that is hard to break. Instead of seeking revenge, it is better to talk about your feelings, try to understand the other person, and choose forgiveness. This way, you can move on and find peace instead of staying stuck in anger and hurt. Remember, revenge might seem sweet at first, but it often leaves a bitter taste in the end.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

  • Essay on Reverence For Life
  • Essay on Revolt Of 1857
  • Essay on Revolutionary War

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Hum Brain Mapp
  • v.41(17); 2020 Dec

Logo of humanbrain

Revenge is sweet: Investigation of the effects of Approach‐Motivated anger on the RewP in the motivated anger delay ( MAD ) paradigm

A. hunter threadgill.

1 Department of Psychology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee Florida, USA

Philip A. Gable

2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark Delaware, USA

Associated Data

All experimental protocols, example documents, stimuli, computer scripts, and data for both experiments are available online at https://osf.io/7v94a/ (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7V94A).

Past research has found that neural activity associated with feedback processing is enhanced by positive approach‐motivated states. However, no past work has examined how reward processing changes in the context of revenge. Using a novel aggression paradigm, we sought to explore the influence of approach‐motivated anger on neural responses to feedback indicating the opportunity to seek revenge against an offending opponent by examining the reward positivity (RewP), an event‐related potential indexing performance feedback. In Experiment 1, after receiving insulting feedback from an opponent, participants played a reaction time game with three trial types: revenge trials, aggravation trials, and no‐consequence trials. Results revealed that RewP amplitudes were larger to revenge trial win feedback than no‐consequence trial win feedback or revenge trial loss feedback. RewP amplitudes were larger to both aggravation trial win and loss feedback than on no‐consequence trials. Experiment 2 examined the influence of approach‐motivated anger during the acquisition of rewards on the RewP without the possibility of retribution from the offending individual. Participants played a reaction time game similar to Experiment 1, except instead of giving or receiving noise blasts, participants could win money from the insulter (revenge trials) or a neutral‐party (e.g., bank). Results indicated that revenge wins elicited larger RewP amplitudes than bank wins. These results suggest that anger enhances revenge‐related RewP amplitudes to obtaining revenge opportunities and further aggravation wins or losses. Anger appears to enhance the pleasurable feelings of revenge.

Using a novel aggression paradigm, we sought to explore the influence of approach‐motivated anger on neural responses to feedback indicating the opportunity to seek revenge against an offending opponent by examining the reward positivity (RewP), an event‐related potential indexing performance feedback. Results indicated that, in participants who were angry, the RewP was largest during revenge trials, suggested that anger enhances revenge‐related RewP amplitudes to obtaining revenge opportunities and further aggravation wins or losses. Anger appears to enhance the pleasurable feelings of revenge.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g014.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

“It [revenge] is far sweeter than honey.” — Homer, The Illiad

Individuals pursue revenge as perceived rewarding events, in which there exists a belief that the act of revenge will be satisfying or pleasurable (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008 ). The perception of the utility of revenge appears to be widespread; indeed, even a brief review of a wide array of media, including literature, popular entertainment, and religious and legal writings, suggest that revenge is a natural response to perceived offenses. Additionally, revenge appears to be highly motivating, even to the extent of motivating and justifying extreme amoral behavior. For example, an estimated 20% to 40% of homicides in the United States appear to be motivated by revenge (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017 ; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003 ), suggesting that revenge is a widespread social phenomenon that impacts the lives of millions of people. While individuals often come to regret their revengeful actions, within the present moment, the act of revenge appears to “feel good” by eliciting positive emotions as one presumably rectifies an angering situation (Chester, 2017 ; Knutson, 2004 ; Trivers, 1971 ). Thus, while revenge‐seeking behaviors are often the product of anger toward a situation, revenge‐seeking behaviors are manifested out of a desire to experience a rewarding feeling of gratification, which often occur when simply knowing that one has the ability to seek revenge against an offender. However, the neural mechanisms associated with the pleasurable aspects of revenge‐seeking has received relatively little research. The present research was designed to understand the neural underpinnings of emotional reactions to winning the opportunity to partake in revenge, as well as further offense.

1.1. Characteristics of revenge

Revenge refers to a desirable aggressive reaction in response to a harmful action (Schumann & Ross, 2010 ). More specifically, revenge is a motivated act driven by the goal to see a transgressor suffer (Zaibert, 2006 ). This explicitly differs from retributive punishment, in that the goal of revenge is not to merely retaliate against the offending party to show that some behavior is bad, but to alleviate intense negative emotions via making an offender suffer (Grobbink, Derksen, & van Marle, 2015 ). Thus, while punishment is considered a form of justice, revenge stems from feelings of anger or vengeance toward an individual or situation (Feinberg, 1970 ).

Individuals seeking justice often believe that revenge will be a positive experience with the goal of bringing about catharsis toward an angering event (Bushman, 2002 ; Chester & DeWall, 2017 ; Chester, Merwin, & DeWall, 2015 ). This makes sense, given that past research has found that attaining goals results in greater cheerfulness responses (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997 ). In the context of revenge, the individual seeking revenge anticipates feeling better and having a better mood after an aggressive response toward some offender (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007 ; Bushman, 2002 ). Increases in positive affect after an aggressive reaction occur because the individual seeking revenge believes that justice has been distributed to an offender (Frijda, 1994 ). Individuals appear to partake in these behaviors with the desire to increase positive affect after an angering situation.

1.2. Anger: An emotional driver of revenge

Aggression often occurs in response to some frustration (Berkowitz, 1989 ). However, aggressive revenge, more specifically, is thought to be driven by negative affects such as anger in response to some transgression (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ). Anger is experienced as an unpleasant emotional state often associated with the approach motivational system (Harmon‐Jones, 2004 ; Harmon‐Jones, Schmeichel, Mennitt, & Harmon‐Jones, 2011 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2019a ). Approach motivation, or the impetus to move toward some goal or object, is a fundamental dimension of affective states (Gable, Neal, & Threadgill, 2018 ; Gable, Threadgill, & Adams, 2016 ; Harmon‐Jones, Harmon‐Jones, & Price, 2013 ; Pizzagalli, Sherwood, Henriques, & Davidson, 2005 ; Ridderinkhof, 2017 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2018a , 2019b ). Much research has associated anger with approach motivation (for review, see Carver & Harmon‐Jones, 2009 ). For example, anger is associated with approach‐motivated urges (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939 ; Harmon‐Jones, Price, Peterson, Gable, & Harmon‐Jones, 2013 ), approach‐oriented patterns of physiological responses (Jameison, Koslov, Nock, & Mendes, 2012 ) and relates to more approach‐motivated traits such as self‐assurance, strength, and bravery (Izard, 1991 ; Lerner & Keltner, 2001 ). Moreover, neural regions associated with approach motivation are activated during situational anger (see Gable & Poole, 2014 ; Gable, Poole, & Harmon‐Jones, 2015 ; Harmon‐Jones & Gable, 2018 , for a review).

Past work has suggested that retaliatory aggression can be approach‐motivated. Harmon‐Jones and Sigelman ( 2001 ) found that, after an insult, participants who had greater left frontal alpha asymmetry, a neural correlate of approach motivation, engaged in more aggressive behavior. In contrast, participants who were led to believe that they could not act on their anger by taking actions to resolve an anger‐inducing event showed less left frontal alpha asymmetry than those who did expect to be able to resolve an anger‐inducing event (Harmon‐Jones, Sigelman, Bohlig, & Harmon‐Jones, 2003 ), suggesting that the ability to rectify an angering‐situation is approach‐motivating.

Other work has shown that participants rate aggressive responses after being provoked as more pleasurable than unjustified aggression (Ramirez, Bonniot‐Cabanac, & Cabanac, 2005 ). Chester et al. ( 2016 ) found that greater sensation‐seeking mediated the relationship between dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms (which is associated with reward seeking behaviors) and previous history of aggression. Additionally, retaliatory behaviors are associated with activity in the ventral striatum, a key component of the reward system in the brain (Chester & DeWall, 2018 ). Together, this work suggests that approach‐motivated anger is related to both aggressive behaviors and the experience of positive emotions, such as pleasure after aggression.

Based on this past work, an important next step in understanding revenge is to examine how anger impacts the experience of winning the opportunity for revenge. It seems likely that simply winning the opportunity for revenge may elicit emotional responses similar to the pleasant feelings elicited by partaking in revengeful behaviors. No past work has examined how anger impacts the rapid neural reactions to winning the opportunity to partake in revenge‐seeking behaviors. Therefore, we conducted two studies in which participants were made angry by an ostensible aggressor. Participants then engaged in a novel aggression paradigm where, on some trials, they were able to seek revenge against the offending individual, while, on other trials, participants simply beat their opponent in a reaction time game. The present studies sought to shed light on transitory reactions to winning the opportunity to seek revenge against a transgressor. To examine these momentary reactions to winning the ability to get revenge toward an angering situation, we examined the reward positivity (RewP), an ERP component that evaluates outcomes as either positive or negative.

1.3. The reward positivity as a neural correlate of revenge and goal success

Integral to the examination of goal pursuit is understanding feedback signaling the success or failures of goal pursuit actions. This action monitoring enhances processing of rewarding feedback in order to maximize the probability of attaining rewards (Krigolson, Hassall, & Handy, 2014 ; Sutton & Barto, 1998 ). The RewP is an ERP component generated along the fronto‐central midline and is sensitive to action outcomes (Proudfit, 2015 ). Traditionally known as the feedback(−related) negativity, this ERP component is an underlying positive‐going deflection occurring in the time range of approximately 250 ms at frontocentral sites. Positive (i.e., win) feedback tends to evoke a larger positive‐going wave than negative (i.e., loss) or neutral feedback (Holroyd, Krigolson, & Lee, 2011 ; Threadgill et al., 2020 ; Weinberg, Riesel, & Proudfit, 2014 ), likely reflecting midbrain phasic dopaminergic firing in the cingulate cortex (Carlson, Foti, Mujica‐Parodi, Harmon‐Jones, & Hajcak, 2011 ; Holroyd & Yeung, 2012 ; Krigolson, 2018 ; Schultz, 2007 ). This suggests that the RewP reflects a binary evaluation of feedback as either rewarding or nonrewarding (Hajcak, Moser, Holroyd, & Simons, 2006 ), as well as coding prediction errors involved in reinforcement learning (Holroyd & Coles, 2002 ; Ullsperger, Danielmeier, & Jocham, 2014 ).

Recent research has found that changes in RewP amplitude may go beyond simple good vs. bad associations to also incorporate the motivational salience of feedback (Bromberg‐Martin, Matsumoto, & Hikosaka, 2010 ; Esber & Haselgrove, 2011 ; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002 ; Hird, El‐Deredy, Jones, & Talmi, 2018 ; Oliveira, McDonald, & Goodman, 2007 ). For example, past work has found that enhancing positive approach motivation enhances feedback processing of successful outcomes (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ; Wilhelm, Miller, & Gable, 2019 ). Other work has found that enhancing the motivation of both positive and negative outcomes modulates a larger RewP (Talmi, Atkinson, & El‐Deredy, 2013 ). Furthermore, clinical disorders associated with decreased approach motivation (such as depression) decrease the RewP (Brush, Ehmann, Hajcak, Selby, & Alderman, 2018 ; Proudfit, 2015 ).

All past work suggests that the RewP may be sensitive to either the motivational salience or the valence of outcomes. However, past experiments are limited in that they have only examined valence (positive vs. negative or neutral) outcomes on the RewP, or they have only examined the influence of positive affects high in approach on the RewP. Thus, all obtained results suggesting that approach motivation causes enhanced feedback processing could be interpreted as being due to approach‐positive states. The present research was designed to clarify these conceptual issues by examining the effect of anger, a negatively‐valenced approach‐motivated state, on reward processing via being able to seek revenge against an offending subject.

While past work has suggested that only positive states in the form of winning feedback could elicit the RewP, it may be the case that negative approach‐motivated states would elicit a larger RewP when winning the ability to pursue revenge opportunities, and prevent further aggression, due to increases in motivational salience, relative to a neutral state. If winning the ability to seek revenge toward an angering situation elicits a distinct RewP, then motivation to pursue revenge occurs in order to evoke feelings of satisfaction or euphoria. However, if winning the opportunity to seek revenge against an angering situation does not elicit a distinct RewP, then it is likely the case that the RewP simply tracks the valence of outcomes, as opposed to the motivational salience of the outcome.

1.4. The current experiments

Examining neural activity while winning the opportunity to seek revenge against an offending opponent in angry individuals provides a unique paradigm to examine how approach motivation undergirds revenge‐seeking behavior. The current studies utilized a novel social‐aggression paradigm to evoke approach‐motivated anger and assess revenge‐seeking behavior toward (or further provocation from) an ostensible participant who insulted them. Experiment 1 examined wins and losses when winning (vs. losing) the opportunity to get revenge against (revenge trials) or wining (vs. losing) the possibility of further aggression by an offending opponent (aggravation trials). Because it was possible that Experiment 1 may have elicited both approach and avoidance motivation during the social‐aggression paradigm, Experiment 2 sought to explore the unique role of approach‐motivated anger by eliminating conditions that could possibly evoke avoidance‐motivated states (e.g., further aggression). More specifically, we removed the ability for the offending individual to further provoke participants and, instead, gave participants the ability to win a monetary award from a neutral third‐party.

In Experiment 1, it was hypothesized that approach‐motivated anger would increase reward processing to winning the opportunity to seek revenge or taking the opportunity to aggress away from an insulter in participants who demonstrate anger toward an insult. Specifically, we predict that the RewP would be larger to win feedback following revenge trials and aggravation trials than win feedback following no‐consequence trials. Furthermore, depending on whether the RewP is most influenced by valence or approach motivation, RewP amplitudes to loss feedback could exhibit two divergent patterns of activity. If valence alone is driving the RewP, then RewP amplitudes to losses should be similar between conditions. However, if approach motivation independently influences RewP amplitudes, then enhanced approach motivation to losses on aggravation trials should enhance the RewP to loss feedback, relative to no‐consequence trial losses.

Finally, given the novel nature of our experimental paradigm (the Motivated Anger Delay Paradigm, or the MAD Paradigm), across both studies, we included three manipulation check measures. We predict that the anger manipulation would increase self‐reported anger, relative to a baseline measurement of anger occurring before the anger manipulation. We also predicted that motivated trials would increase excitement and anger as compared to neutral trials. Lastly, we predicted that motivated trials would show faster responses to the goal‐directed task, as compared to neutral trials.

2. EXPERIMENT 1

All experimental protocols, example documents, stimuli, computer scripts, and data for both experiments are available online at https://osf.io/7v94a/ (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7V94A ). 1 The research protocol for both studies was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama.

2.1. Methods

2.1.1. participants.

A priori power analyses were conducted using G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007 ). In the calculation of our required sample size for Experiment 1, we sought to use conservative estimates of parameters in our calculation to make sure that we were adequately powered. More specifically, we used a medium partial‐eta squared effect size of .07, which is less than half the effect size found by Threadgill and Gable ( 2016 ); this was also smaller than the effect sizes found in Threadgill & Gable, 2018b ) when examining the influence of approach motivation on the RewP. Furthermore, we calculated power at 95%, as opposed to the customary 80% that is typically recommended. Finally, we also used the correlation amongst repeated‐measures of .6, as that was the correlation between wins and losses that we have found in our lab in previous research (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , unpublished analysis). Based upon the stated parameters, we determined that a sample size of 40 participants was sufficient.

Additionally, we conducted pilot testing without collecting physiological data both to have research assistants extensively practice the protocol that we planned to use while collecting physiological data and to gain an approximate understanding of how many participants would fail to believe the manipulation. Pilot testing including 59 participants suggested that approximately one‐third of participants indicated during a suspicion probe at the end of the experimental session that they either did not believe that the insult came from another individual or did not experience anger toward the insulting aggressor (see Procedures for our exclusionary criterion used when collecting EEG data). Therefore, we collected data from 60 right‐handed individuals, who participated in exchange for partial course credit.

2.1.2. Paradigm

To test our hypotheses, we developed the motivated anger delay (MAD) paradigm, based in part on the essay feedback provocation paradigm (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998 ), the Taylor aggression paradigm (Taylor, 1966 ), and the monetary incentive delay paradigm (Knutson, Westdorp, Kaiser, & Hommer, 2000 ; see Figure ​ Figure1 1 for experiment flowchart of MAD paradigm). In our task, participants were first insulted by receiving negative feedback on an essay they wrote, ostensibly from another participant (the “insulter”). This insult was designed to make participants angry toward the other individual. Participants were then able to act on their anger through a competitive reaction time task (e.g., flanker task; Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974 ). In the task, participants can win the opportunity to either deliver low noise blasts against their opponent (revenge trials) or prevent their opponent from blasting them with noise (aggravation trials). It is likely the case that when an individual is angry at their opponent, wins that reward the participant and punish the offending opponent increase approach‐motivated excitement. In contrast, losses that reward the offending opponent and punish the participant increase approach‐motivated aggravation in participants. A third, no‐noise blast condition served as a competitive no‐consequence (i.e., no noise blast was exchanged) comparison.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g001.jpg

Flowchart of MAD paradigm

2.1.3. Procedures

Participants were brought into the lab alone. Participants were told by a trained research assistant that they would be taking part in two experiments: the first one was to examine the relationship between personality variables and writing styles, and the second one involved playing a reaction time game against another participant. Experimenters told participants that there was a second participant in the adjacent room with whom they would be interacting. This person did not actually exist. Effort was made to increase the believability of the ostensible opponent. These details are provided in the Supplementary Materials .

2.1.4. Insult manipulation

After giving consent, participants were told that the first study involved one participant writing an essay, while the other participant evaluated the essay (see Supplementary Materials ; Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001 ; Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ; Harmon‐Jones, Vaughn‐Scott, Mohr, Sigelman, & Harmon‐Jones, 2004 ). Participants were then given the “Social Attitudes Assessment.” On it, they were instructed to write an essay defending their position on a controversial issue, picking a subject that is the most important to that individual from a list of controversial topics. Examples include reducing the drinking age, the legality of same‐sex marriage, and the legality of abortion. After 10 min, the experimenter stopped the participant, who then pretended to take the essay to the other participant to be graded.

After “delivering” the essay, the participant completed a variety of personality surveys that the “grader” had ostensibly completed during the writing phase. Participants also filled out the PANAS‐X (Watson & Clark, 1999 ) to measure their emotional state before receiving feedback. Once the participant has finished filling out the personality questionnaires, the experimenter applied EEG sensors and recorded 4 min of resting EEG activity, which has been used in past research using a similar manipulation (Peterson, Shackman, & Harmon‐Jones, 2008 ). Participants were given instructions over a speaker to sit quietly with their eyes open or closed (alternating for 1 min at a time). While resting data was recorded with the participant's eyes open (2 min), participants were instructed to look at the center of a blank computer monitor in front of them.

The experimenter then returned to the experiment room, presumably to set up for the next experiment. In reality, the experimenter was delivering the insulting feedback to participants (see Supplementary Materials ). The feedback was designed to be insulting based off previous studies using feedback to evoke anger (Harmon‐Jones & Peterson, 2009 ; Hortensius, Schutter, & Harmon‐Jones, 2012 ; Peterson et al., 2008 ). The feedback consisted of ratings on several different categories, allegedly given by the other participant. Participants saw ratings on a 1–9 bipolar scale on six characteristics. The anchors shown were unintelligent (1)—intelligent (9), thought‐provoking (1)—boring (9), friendly (1)—unfriendly (9), illogical (1)—logical (9), respectable (1)—unrespectable (9), and irrational (1)—rational (9). Participants were given a rating of 2 or 3 when negative words were represented by a 1, and 7 or 8 when negative words were represented by a 9. At the bottom of the page, the feedback had a hand‐written note saying, “I can't believe an educated person would think like this. I hope this person learns something while at [the University of Alabama]! I can't even believe that they would think that [issue] should be [allowed/not allowed]!” Pilot testing of this manipulation revealed that this feedback increased anger, frustration, and hostility, relative to baseline levels at the beginning of the experiment.

Once the participant has finished reading the feedback, the experimenter told the participant that they needed to take a second baseline recording, ostensibly because they were waiting on the other participant to finish their baseline recordings. Participants were instructed to think about how they presently felt while EEG data was recorded for 1 min with eyes open, which has been used in past research using a similar manipulation (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ). 2 Participants were instructed over a speaker to look at the center of a blank computer monitor in front of them while resting activity was recorded.

2.1.5. Aggression task

After the second baseline recording, the experimenter returned to the experiment room and explained the second study. Participants were told that they would be competing against the other participant in a reaction time game. They were told that the computers were connected in real time through cables in the back of the room, and all feedback was dependent on which participant was quicker to respond correctly. The experimenter told the participant that the game would begin once they had given the other participant the instructions. The experimenter left the room, waited for 30 s , and started the game. Instructions for the game were presented on the computer.

The game was modeled after previous aggression tasks (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002 ; Peterson et al., 2008 ; Taylor, 1966 ), in which participants were given the opportunity to blast the insulter with noise if they were faster than their opponent in a reaction time game. Each trial ( n  = 72; see Figure ​ Figure2) 2 ) began with a trial cue displayed in the center of a computer monitor, consisting of one of the following shapes: a white circle, a white triangle, or a white square. Circles represented revenge trial cues. Squares represented aggravation trial cues. Triangles represented no‐consequence trial cues. One‐third of the trials were revenge trials ( n = 24), one‐third of the trials were no‐consequence trials ( n = 24), and one‐third of the trials were aggravation trials ( n = 24). No trial type was presented more than three consecutive times.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g002.jpg

Experiment 1 example trials. Between the trial cue and flanker response, there was an ISI of 500 ms. Between the flanker response and feedback, there was an ISI of 500 ms. The intertrial intervals were 4,000 ms. A black screen was presented during all ISI's and ITI's

After the trial cue, participants completed the goal‐related task, which was a flanker response (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974 ). Participants indicated the direction of a center arrow by pressing the left or right shift key as quickly as possible. The flanker response remained on the screen until the participant responded. Participants were told that faster responses than their opponent would win the trial. On revenge trials, if the participant won, they had the opportunity to blast the insulter with a loud (102 dB) noise. If they lost, then nothing happened. On no‐consequence trials, there was no‐consequence (e.g., no noise blast was exchanged), regardless of whether the participant won or lost. Participants were told that results of the no‐consequence trials were random and unrelated to reaction time to the flanker response. On aggravation trials, if the participant lost, the insulter could blast the participant with noise. If the participant won, then nothing happened. It was predicted that losing on this trial to the insulter would cause greater aggravation.

The noise blast was equivalent to the average car or house stereo at maximum volume at close range (Gable & Harmon‐Jones, 2009 ). Prior to the participant arriving, the experimenter checked the noise level volume in the headphones using the Decibel 10th application on an Apple iPhone (fourth generation) to ensure that 102 dB was reached by the headphones.

Following the flanker response, participants received feedback indicating whether they did or did not win on that trial. A white circle, triangle, or square (corresponding with the trial type) was presented with an arrow pointing either a green up arrow or red down arrow, indicating win or loss feedback, respectively.

Trial outcome was fixed for all trials. Half of the revenge trials, half of the no‐consequence trials, and half of the aggravation trials resulted in a win ( n  = 12 for revenge trials, n  = 12 for no‐consequence trials, and n  = 12 for aggravation trials). The remaining trials resulted in a loss. On revenge trials and aggravation trials, participants received loss feedback if they gave an incorrect response or if their response exceed 1,500 ms. Incorrect flanker responses were removed from analysis of flanker reaction times (revenge trials: 82.20% retained; no‐consequence trials: 88.03% retained; aggravation trials: 88.03% retained).

If a revenge trial resulted in win feedback, participants were able deliver up to 10 s of a 102 dB white noise to the insulter. Upon receiving win feedback, participants were required to indicate how long they wished for the noise blast to be (1 =  5 seconds , 6 = 10  seconds ; participants were not allowed to “opt out” of blasting their opponent). After selection of how long the noise blast would be, the “noise blast” was delivered for the length of time indicated by the participant. If a revenge trial resulted in loss feedback, the game simply proceeded to the next trial. Regardless of whether a no‐consequence trial resulted in win feedback or loss feedback, the game simply proceeded to the next trial, because neither participant was able to blast the other participant with a loud noise.

If an aggravation trial resulted in win feedback, the game simply continued to the next trial. However, if an aggravation trial resulted in loss feedback, participants waited between 5 and 7 s as the insulter made a noise selection. A noise blast was then delivered through stereo headphones. The noise blast that was delivered at 102 dB and lasted for either 5 or 7 s .

Six practice trials occurred at the beginning of the experiment (two of each trial type with each trial type resulting with one win and one loss) and were not included for analyses. In between each trial, participants were prompted to click the spacebar to proceed to the next trial, followed by a screen indicating that the computer is waiting on the opponent (300–700 ms waiting period). The game lasted for approximately 50 min. During debriefing, all participants reported that they were engaged throughout the entirety of the game, and no participants reported being fatigued.

After the game, participants completed the PANAS‐X (Watson & Clark, 1999 ) a second time. Furthermore, participants rated how they felt during each of the three trial cues and each of the six possible feedback cues presented in the MAD paradigm on a scale of 1 ( no emotion ) to 9 ( strongest feeling ; Ekman, Friesen, & Ancoli, 1980 ). The feelings assessed were as follows: sad, glad, nervous, enthusiastic, happy, excited, angry, down, mad, and anxious. Because we were only interested in high intensity approach‐motivated states, we only examined those ratings. To examine how participants generally felt toward trial cues and trial feedback pictures, words assessing similar affective responses were averaged across picture type to form indices for excitement (excited and enthusiastic; Cronbach's alpha = .73) and anger (angry and mad; Cronbach's alpha = .88). Ratings data with no responses were removed from analyses, leading to variations in degrees of freedom for analyses. Finally, participants were carefully probed for suspicion using standardized funnel questioning and debriefed.

2.1.6. EEG processing

Electroencephalography was recorded from 32 tin electrodes mounted in a stretch lycra Quick‐Cap (Electroc‐Cap, Eaton, OH) based on the 10–20 system and referenced online to the left earlobe. A ground electrode was mounted midway between FPz and Fz. A sodium‐chloride based conductance gel was used to reduce impedance under 5,000 Ω. Signals were amplified with a Neuroscan SynAmps RT amplifier unit (El Paso, TX), low‐pass filtered at 100 Hz, high‐pass filtered at 0.05 Hz, notch‐filtered at 60 Hz, and digitized at 500 Hz. Artifacts (e.g., horizontal eye movement and muscle) were removed by hand. Then, a regression‐based eye movement correction was applied (Semlitsch, Anderer, Schuster, & Presslich, 1986 ), after which the data was visually inspected again to ensure proper correction.

2.1.7. Frontal asymmetry assessment

Epochs 1.024 s in duration during the baseline periods were extracted through a Hamming window (50% taper of distal ends). Data were re‐referenced using an average ears reference composed of the average activity at the earlobes. Consecutive epochs were overlapped by 50% to minimize data loss due to windowing. Power values within the alpha band (8–13 Hz) were obtained using a fast Fourier transformation and averaged across epochs (Coan & Allen, 2004 ; Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ). Because different studies measuring approach‐motivated anger have used various alpha asymmetry difference scores (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ; Keune et al., 2012 ; Peterson et al., 2008 ; Peterson, Gravens, & Harmon‐Jones, 2011 ; Poole & Gable, 2014 ; Threadgill, Ryan, Jordan, & Hajcak, 2020 ), we used the asymmetry score showing the maximal difference between left and right frontal alpha activity from four asymmetry difference scores (F3/4, F5/6, F7/8, and an index of all three pairs of frontal sites) by subtracting the natural log left from the natural log right alpha activity. The difference between left and right frontal alpha activity was maximal at lateral‐frontal sites F7 and F8 (Cronbach's alpha for the first baseline period = .989; Cronbach's alpha for the second baseline period = .908). 3 Because alpha activity is inversely related to cortical activation (Laufs et al., 2003 ; Lindsley & Wicke, 1974 ), higher scores indicated greater relative left frontal activity.

2.1.8. ERP assessment

EEG data were epoched from 200 ms before feedback onset until 1,200 ms after feedback onset, re‐referenced to the average ears reference, and low‐pass filtered at 35 Hz. Aggregated waveforms for each feedback type were created and baseline corrected using the prestimulus activity. Twelve trials were entered into each of the average waveforms for revenge trial wins, revenge trial losses, no‐consequence trial wins, no‐consequence trial losses, aggravation trial wins, and aggravation trial losses. Based on past research, the RewP mean amplitude was assessed at site Cz within a window of 250–350 ms after feedback onset, because this electrode site and time window had the greatest difference between wins and losses (Baker & Holroyd, 2011 ; Foti, Weinberg, Dien, & Hajcak, 2011 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2016 ). 4

2.1.9. Experimental design and statistical analysis

Some have suggested that participants who fail to show psychophysiological markers of the target emotion, measured independently of the main task, should be excluded from analyses, because it is likely that the manipulation failed to elicit the target emotion (Basso, Schefft, & Hoffman, 1994 ; Shackman et al., 2006 ; Stemmler, 2003 ). Instead of excluding participants on the basis of a retrospective report at the conclusion of the experiment in which participants could possibly be afraid to admit that they either believed the study, experienced anger toward the other participant when receiving negative feedback on the essay, or enjoyed partaking in revenge against the offending opponent (which often can be influenced by researcher degrees‐of‐freedom, such as interpretations of a participant's ambiguous behavioral cues or choice of words), we excluded participants on the basis of psychophysiological markers collected during the course of the experiment that are indicative of approach‐motivated anger, measured independently of the main variable of interest. Using a psychophysiological marker as the criterion for exclusion from analysis allows for more control of individual differences in responses to the anger induction when participants might not be willing or able to accurately report their emotional or motivational state (Rottenberg, Kovacs, & Yaroslavsky, 2017 ). Furthermore, this allows us to capture emotional states during online assessments without reducing hostile evaluations toward a transgressor (which could occur when completing emotion or believability questionnaires directly proceeding the insult manipulation; Berkowitz, Jaffee, Jo, & Troccoli, 2001 ). One psychophysiological marker of increased approach‐motivated anger that has been used to exclude participants in anger paradigms is increased left frontal alpha asymmetry after an anger induction, relative to a baseline (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ; Jensen‐Campbell, Knack, Waldrip, & Campbell, 2007 ; Verona, Sadeh, & Curtin, 2009 ). Increases in left frontal alpha asymmetry have consistently been found to be a reliable biomarker of approach‐motivated anger (d'Alfonso, van Honk, Hermans, Postma, & de Haan, 2000 ; Harmon‐Jones & Gable, 2018 ; Jensen‐Campbell et al., 2007 ; Kelley, Eastwick, Harmon‐Jones, & Schmeichel, 2015 ; Verona et al., 2009 ). However, a recent meta‐analysis found small effect sizes for the relationship between frontal asymmetry and anger (Kuper, Käckenmester, & Wacker, 2019 ), suggesting that the relationship between frontal asymmetry and anger may not exist across all contexts for all individuals. For example, when anger is not able to be expressed, some individuals do not show a relationship between left frontal alpha asymmetry and anger (Zinner, Brodish, Devine, & Harmon‐Jones, 2008 ). Despite small meta‐analytic effects, the insult manipulation should increase frontal asymmetry, supporting past work linking anger and frontal asymmetry.

Because we were primarily interested in the impact of anger on the RewP, we excluded from analyses those participants who failed to show an increase in left frontal alpha asymmetrical activation after the anger induction. More specifically, we created a left frontal alpha asymmetry change score by subtracting the left frontal alpha asymmetry score from the baseline period before the insult manipulation from the left frontal alpha asymmetry score from the baseline period following the insult manipulation. We then excluded all participants who had negative left frontal alpha asymmetry change scores (negative scores indicate that left frontal alpha asymmetry was higher before the insult than after the insult). Data from 14 participants failed to show an increase in left frontal alpha asymmetry. Additionally, two participants' RewP scores were more than three SD s from the mean and were subsequently excluded. This left 44 participants for hypothesis testing (see Table ​ Table1 1 for sample characteristics). 5

Demographic characteristics of full sample and sample for testing in Experiment 1

Note: Values are percentage or mean ( SD in parentheses). One participant had missing demographic data for both groups. Full sample demographics n = 59; sample for testing demographics n = 44.

All data were analyzed with STATISTICA 7 (version 7.1, StatSoft, 2008) using either dependent‐sample t ‐tests or repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Variations in degrees‐of‐freedom are due to a participant missing a score for that particular test. The criterion of statistical significance for all analyses was p  < .05. All post hoc testing was conducted using Fisher's LSD. Means and SD s for all variables are presented in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Full expanded hypotheses for all manipulation checks can be found in the Supplementary Materials . Correlations between all main variables of interest are presented in Supplementary Tables S1‐S3 .

Means and SD for all variables in Experiment 1

Note: SD are in parentheses.

3.1. Baseline affect

A dependent‐sample t ‐test indicated that participants reported being significantly more angry following the insult ( M  = 1.62, SD  = 1.09), relative to a baseline state ( M  = 1.16, SD  = 0.54), t (40) = 2.57, p  = .014, d  = 0.40.

3.2. Trial emotion ratings

3.2.1. emotion ratings to trial cues.

A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) ANOVA examining excitement ratings to the trial cues was significant (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Post hoc analyses revealed that participants were more excited by the revenge trials than the no‐consequence trials and aggravation trials, t s > 2.65, p s < .001, d s > 0.44. No‐consequence trials elicited more excitement than aggravation trials, t (36) = 2.24, p  = .031, d  = 0.37. These results suggest participants were most excited by the revenge trials.

Statistical analyses for emotion ratings to trial cues in Experiment 1

Abbreviation: df, degrees of freedom.

A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining anger ratings to the trial cues was significant (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Post hoc analyses revealed that participants experienced no difference in anger between the revenge trial cues and the no‐consequence trial cues, t (31) = 1.68, p  = .101, d  = 0.30. However, aggravation trial cues elicited significantly more anger than revenge trial cues, t (31) = 2.99, p  < .001, d  = 0.53. Furthermore, aggravation trial cues elicited significantly more anger than no‐consequence trial cues, t (31) = 4.48, p  < .001, d  = 0.79. These results suggest participants were most angered by the aggravation trials.

3.2.2. Emotion ratings to feedback cues

Affect ratings to the feedback cues were examined using a 2 (affective state: excitement vs. anger) × 3 (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) × 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA. This interaction was significant (see Table ​ Table4). 4 ). This three‐way interaction was unpacked by examining the 3 (trial type) × 2 (outcome) interaction for excitement ratings and for anger ratings separately.

Statistical analyses for emotion ratings to feedback cues in Experiment 1

For the excitement ratings, there was a significant trial type by outcome interaction (see Table ​ Table4). 4 ). A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining excitement ratings to win feedback cues was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that participants experienced more excitement to revenge trial wins than no‐consequence trial wins, t (32) = 2.84, p  = .007, d  = 0.49. Additionally, aggravation trial wins elicited more excitement than no‐consequence trial wins, t (32) = 6.31, p  < .001, d  = 1.08. Finally, aggravation trial wins elicited more excitement than revenge trial wins, t (32) = 2.91, p  = .002, d  = 0.50. The one‐way (trial type) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining excitement ratings to loss feedback cues was not significant.

For the anger ratings, there was a significant trial type by outcome interaction (see Table ​ Table4). 4 ). A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining anger ratings to win feedback cues was not significant. However, the one‐way (trial type) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining anger ratings to loss feedback cues was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that participants experienced no differences in anger between revenge trial losses and no‐consequence trial losses, t (33) = 1.41, p  = .167, d  = 0.24. Aggravation trial losses elicited more anger than both revenge trial losses and no‐consequence trial losses, t s > 3.72, ps  < .001, d s > 0.64.

3.3. Flanker response reaction times

Reaction times were logarithmically transformed. A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of flanker response reaction time, F (2, 78) = 7.14, p  = .001, ƞ p 2  = .15. Post hoc analyses revealed that reaction times to the flanker response on revenge trials were faster than reaction times on no‐consequence trials, t (39) = 2.21, p  = .033, d  = 0.35. Reaction times to the flanker response on aggravation trials were faster than reaction times on no‐consequence trials, t (39) = 2.95, p  = .005, d  = 0.47. Reaction times to the flanker response on aggravation trials were faster than reaction times on revenge trials, t (39) = 2.38, p  = .023, d  = 0.38. Both revenge trials and aggravation trials sped reaction times, as compared to no‐consequence trials. Aggravation trials sped reaction times more than revenge trials.

3.4. The reward positivity

To examine differences in RewP amplitude between trial types, we conducted a 3 (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) × 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA. Results indicated that there was a significant main effect of trial type. There was also a nonsignificant effect of feedback and a nonsignificant interaction (but both were bordering on significant; see Figures ​ Figures3, 3 , ​ ,4, 4 , ​ ,5, 5 , ​ ,6, 6 , ​ ,7 7 and Table ​ Table5 5 ). 6

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g003.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during revenge trials in Experiment 1, as well as the difference score between revenge trial wins and revenge trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Note that negative is plotted up by convention. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g004.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during no‐consequence trials in Experiment 1, as well as the difference score between no‐consequence trial wins and no‐consequence trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g005.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during aggravation trials in Experiment 1, as well as the difference score between aggravation trial wins and aggravation trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g006.jpg

ERP waveforms for win feedback during revenge, no‐consequence, and aggravation trials in Experiment 1 at site CZ

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g007.jpg

ERP waveforms for loss feedback during revenge, no‐consequence, and aggravation trials in Experiment 1 at site CZ

Statistical analyses for the reward positivity in Experiment 1

Based on hypotheses, we wanted to investigate how condition influenced win and loss feedback using a series of one‐way ANOVAs. For RewP amplitudes to win feedback, a one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that the RewP to revenge trial wins was larger than the RewP to no‐consequence trial wins, t (42) = 3.20, p  = .003, d  = 0.49. Additionally, the RewP to aggravation trial wins was larger than the RewP to no‐consequence trial wins, t (42) = 3.25, p  = .002, d  = 0.50. There was no difference in RewP amplitudes between revenge trial wins and aggravation trial wins, t (42) = 0.29, p  = .777, d  = 0.04. Together, these results suggest that revenge and aggravation trial wins elicit greater RewP amplitudes than no‐consequence trial wins.

For RewP amplitudes to loss feedback, a one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) repeated‐measures ANOVA was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that the RewP to revenge trial losses was similar to the RewP to no‐consequence trial losses, t (44) = 1.23, p  = .226, d  = 0.19. However, aggravation trial losses elicited a larger RewP than no‐consequence trial losses ( t (44) = 2.63, p  = .012, d  = 0.40) and a RewP marginally larger than revenge trial losses ( t (44) = 1.90, p  = .064, d  = 0.29). These results suggest that aggravation trial losses elicited a larger RewP than revenge and no‐consequence trial losses.

Because the RewP has traditionally been examined by comparing amplitudes during win feedback to amplitudes during loss feedback, we conducted a dependent‐sample t ‐test within each trial type. Revenge trial wins elicited a larger RewP than revenge trial losses, t (43) = 3.10, p  = .003, d  = 0.47. There were no differences in RewP amplitudes between no‐consequence trial wins and no‐consequence trial losses ( t (43) = 0.22, p  = .825, d  = 0.03) or between aggravation trial wins and aggravation trial losses ( t (43) = 1.14, p  = .169, d  = 0.17). 7

3.5. Discussion for experiment 1

Experiment 1 revealed that, when angry, participants experienced more excitement to revenge trial cues than both no‐consequence and aggravation trial cues and more anger to aggravation trial cues than both no‐consequence and revenge trial cues. This suggests that participants were experiencing approach‐motivated affective states during the pursuit of rewards. Additionally, both revenge and aggravation trial win feedback elicited more excitement than no‐consequence trial win feedback, while aggravation trial loss feedback elicited more anger than no‐consequence and revenge trial loss feedback. This suggests that participants experienced approach‐motivated affective states to angering feedback. Behavioral results based on flanker task reaction times support that participants were approach‐motivated by the revenge and aggravation conditions. Participants were faster to flanker responses following revenge and aggravation trial cues than no‐consequence trial cues. Together with self‐reported emotion, these results indicate that participants experienced increased approach‐motivated affect in revenge and aggravation trials, relative to no‐consequence trials.

RewP amplitudes were larger after revenge trial win feedback than after revenge trial loss feedback in participants who were made angry by an insult manipulation. Consistent with past work, these results suggest that the RewP is more sensitive to win feedback than loss feedback. RewP amplitudes were also larger after both revenge trial win feedback and aggravation trial win feedback than no‐consequence trial win feedback. These results suggest that approach‐motivated states associated with a goal evoked larger RewPs than neutral states. Finally, aggravation trial loss feedback elicited larger RewP amplitudes than no‐consequence trial loss feedback. This suggests that, despite negative feedback, the enhanced approach‐motivation associated with further aggravation enhanced RewP amplitudes.

Experiment 1 examined how anger impacts reward processing, with results suggesting that motivational salience, rather than valence, enhances the RewP. However, the results of Experiment 1 could possibly be due to two potential confounds. First, Experiment 1 had participants complete a task with a positive condition (revenge trials), neutral condition (no‐consequence trials), and negative condition (aggravation trials). Thus, Experiment 2 removed this confound by replacing the negative aggravation trials with a second positive condition (bank trials) that elicited different levels of approach motivational intensity than revenge trials.

Second, the aggravation condition in Experiment 1 may have also elicited avoidance motivation, because participants were trying to prevent the opponent from being able to blast them with a loud noise. It might be the case that participants feared that the “other participant” may reciprocate excessively aggressive actions with aggressive actions of their own. In order to account for this potential compound, and to fully examine how approach‐motivated anger influences the RewP to revenge feedback, we replaced the aggravation condition with a positive approach‐motivated condition that did not allow for the possibility of seeking revenge.

4. EXPERIMENT 2

To address the possibility that aggravation trials may have elicited avoidance‐motivation, Experiment 2 replaced this condition with one that could not result in further aggression from the opponent. Thus, Experiment 2 removed this possibility by having participants beat the offending opponent in order to win money without the potential for reciprocal aggression. Participants could win money in one of two ways: participants could either win money from an offending opponent (revenge trials) or from a neutral third‐party bank (bank trials). There was no possibility for the offending opponent to take money from the participant.

Furthermore, to examine the unique role of revenge on the RewP, as compared to a general approach‐motivated state, Experiment 2 included conditions with the possibility of winning a revenge opportunity and winning an equally rewarding nonrevenge opportunity. Specifically, participants had the opportunity to take money from an opponent or take money from a neutral bank. Because Experiment 1 had both a positive condition (revenge trials) and negative condition (aggravation trials), it may not have allowed us to compare the unique role of approach‐motivated anger alone on revenge, relative to another approach‐motivated positive condition. Thus, Experiment 2 only created approach‐motivated states of either winning money from a bank or from the offending opponent. This allowed for the comparison between two potential wins: one motivated by revenge, and the other unmotivated by revenge. Together, Experiment 2 allowed us to parse out more directly how approach‐motivated anger associated with revenge relates to reward seeking.

To test this, Experiment 2 used a different variation of the MAD paradigm. After the same insult manipulation used in Experiment 1, participants were told that they were going to participate in a reaction time game against their opponent where they could win money from a variety of sources. Participants were then told that they were randomly assigned to begin the game with no money, while the insulter was given $10.00. Finally, participants were told that in some trials, participants could win the trial and take money from their opponent (revenge condition). In other trials, participants could win the trial and win money from a neutral bank (bank condition). Thus, in this version of the MAD paradigm, participants partook in two positive conditions in which both awarded money, but should invoke different levels of approach motivation (since participants could seek revenge against their opponent in one condition, while they could not seek revenge in the other condition).

Approach‐motivated anger should be greatest when one is able to rectify an angering event (Harmon‐Jones et al., 2003 ). Therefore, participants should experience the most approach motivation when they are able to win the opportunity to get revenge by taking money from the opponent, as opposed to simply winning money from a neutral bank. Thus, approach motivation was predicted to increase outcome monitoring sensitivity. Specifically, we predicted that the RewP would be larger to win feedback following both revenge trials and bank trials than win feedback following no‐consequence trials. More importantly, we predicted that the RewP would be larger to win feedback following revenge trials than win feedback following bank trials. Approach‐motivated anger should increase outcome monitoring sensitivity when winning the ability to win money and resolve the source of anger.

4.1. Methods

4.1.1. participants.

We conducted a second power analysis utilizing the results of Experiment 1. More specifically, we used the partial‐eta squared effect size of .05 (as was found in Experiment 1). We also used the more customary power value of 80%. Keeping all other parameters constant with the power analysis from Experiment 1, we determined that a sample size of 33 participants was sufficient. However, given that we did not pilot test the changes between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 made to the MAD paradigm, we sought to run a similar number of participants in the current study as Experiment 1. Sixty‐three right‐handed individuals participated in exchange for partial course credit. Seven participant's EEG data was lost due to computer malfunction and were excluded. This left a total sample of 56 participants (before exclusions due to no increase in frontal asymmetry scores).

4.1.2. Procedures

All procedures preceding the reaction time game replicated those of Experiment 1. However, to investigate the unique role of approach‐motivated anger in reward processing, we used a different variation of the MAD paradigm. In this variation, participants were given the opportunity to win money if they were faster than their opponent in a reaction time game (see Figure ​ Figure8). 8 ). On revenge trials, if the participant won, they had the opportunity to take up to $0.15 from their opponent (1 =  $0.00 , 6 =  $0.15 ; increments of 3 cents). If they lost, participants proceeded to the next trial.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g008.jpg

Experiment 2 example trials. Between the trial cue and flanker response, there was an ISI of 500 ms. Between the flanker response and feedback, there was an ISI of 500 ms. The intertrial intervals were 4,000 ms. A black screen was presented during all ISI's and ITI's

Furthermore, so that participants would know that the other opponent would not be able to retaliate, aggravation trials were replaced with bank trials. Thus, square cues now represented bank trial cues. On these trials, following the goal‐directed task (flanker response), participants received feedback indicating whether they did or did not win on that trial. More specifically, participants were presented with a white square with either a green up arrow or a red down arrow, indicating win or loss feedback, respectively. If the participant won, they had the opportunity to take up to $0.15 from a bank (1 =  $0.00 , 6 =  $0.15 ; increments of 3 cents). 8 If they lost, participants proceeded to the next trial. All other aspects of the MAD paradigm were similar to Experiment 1.

The game lasted for approximately 50 min. During debriefing, all participants reported that they were engaged throughout the entirety of the game, and no participants reported being fatigued.

After the game, participants completed the PANAS‐X (Watson & Clark, 1999 ) a second time. Furthermore, participants rated how they felt during each of the three trial cues and each of the six possible feedback cues presented in the MAD paradigm on a scale of 1 ( no emotion ) to 9 ( strongest feeling ; Ekman et al., 1980 ). Similar to Experiment 1, words assessing similar affective responses were averaged across picture type to form indices for excitement (excited and enthusiastic; Cronbach's alpha = .70) and anger (angry and mad; Cronbach's alpha = .74) toward each of the trial cues and trial feedback ratings separately. Ratings data with no responses were removed from analyses, leading to variations in degrees of freedom for analyses.

4.1.3. EEG processing

All EEG data collection and preprocessing steps were identical to Study 1.

4.1.4. Frontal asymmetry assessment

Frontal asymmetry assessment was identical to Study 1. The difference between left and right frontal alpha activity was maximal at the index of all three pairs of frontal sites (Cronbach's alpha for the first baseline period = .990; Cronbach's alpha for the second baseline period = .967). Similar to Experiment 1, we excluded from analyses those participants who failed to show an increase in left frontal alpha asymmetrical activation after the anger induction. Specifically, data from 21 participants failed to show an increase in left frontal alpha asymmetry. This left 35 participants for hypothesis testing (see Table ​ Table6 6 for sample characteristics). 9

Demographic characteristics of full sample and sample for testing in Experiment 2

Note: Values are percentage or mean ( SD in parentheses). Full sample demographics n = 63; Sample for testing demographics n = 35.

4.1.5. ERP assessment

ERP assessment was identical to Experiment 1. Twelve trials were entered into each of the average waveforms for revenge trial wins, revenge trial losses, bank trial wins, bank trial losses, no‐consequence trial wins, and no‐consequence trial losses. Based on past research, the RewP mean amplitude was assessed at site Cz within a window of 250–350 ms after feedback onset, because this electrode site and time window had the greatest difference between wins and losses (Baker & Holroyd, 2011 ; Foti et al., 2011 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2016 ).

4.1.6. Experimental design and statistical analysis

All data were analyzed with STATISTICA 7 (version 7.1, StatSoft, 2008) using either dependent‐sample t ‐tests or repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The criterion of statistical significance for all analyses was p  < .05. Post hoc testing was conducted using Fisher's LSD. Means and SD s for all variables are presented in Table ​ Table7. 7 . Full expanded hypotheses for all manipulation checks can again be found in the Supplementary Materials . Correlations between all main variables of interest are presented in Supplementary Tables S4‐S6 .

Means and SD s for all variables in Experiment 2

Note: SD s are in parentheses.

5.1. Baseline affect

A dependent‐sample t‐test indicated that participants reported being significantly more angry following the insult ( M  = 1.56, SD  = 0.93), relative to a baseline state ( M  = 1.01, SD  = 0.08), t (34) = 3.63, p  = .001, d  = 0.61.

5.2. Trial emotion ratings

5.2.1. emotion ratings to trial cues.

A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) repeated‐measures ANOVA examining excitement ratings to the trial cues was significant (see Table ​ Table8). 8 ). Post hoc analyses revealed that participants were more excited by the revenge trials ( t [28] = 4.21, p  < .001, d  = 0.78) and bank trials ( t [28] = 4.50, p  < .001, d  = 0.84) than the no‐consequence trials. There was no difference in excitement ratings to revenge and bank trial cues, t (28) = 0.78, p  = .502, d  = 0.14. These results suggest participants were most excited by the revenge and bank trials.

Statistical analyses for emotion ratings to trial cues in Experiment 2

A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA examining anger ratings to the trial cues was not significant.

5.2.2. Emotion ratings to feedback cues

Affect ratings to the feedback cues were examined using a 2 (affective state: excitement vs. anger) × 3 (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) × 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA. This interaction was significant (see Table ​ Table9). 9 ). This three‐way interaction was unpacked by examining the 3 (trial type) × 2 (outcome) interaction for excitement ratings and for anger ratings.

Statistical analyses for emotion ratings to feedback cues in Experiment 2

For excitement ratings, results indicated that there was a significant trial type by outcome interaction (see Table ​ Table9). 9 ). A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA examining excitement ratings to win feedback cues was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that participants experienced more excitement to both revenge trial wins ( t [27] = 4.39, p  < .001, d  = 0.83) and bank trial wins ( t [27] = 3.64, p  < .001, d  = 0.69) than no‐consequence trial wins. Importantly, revenge trial wins elicited more excitement than bank trial wins, t (27) = 2.17, p  = .050, d  = 0.41. The one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA examining excitement ratings to loss feedback cues was not significant.

For anger ratings, results indicated that there was a significant trial type by outcome interaction (see Table ​ Table9). 9 ). A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA examining anger ratings to win feedback cues was not significant. However, the one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA examining anger ratings to loss feedback cues was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that participants experienced more anger to both revenge trial losses ( t [26] = 3.08, p  = .005, d  = 0.51) and bank trial losses ( t [26] = 2.41, p  = .019, d  = 0.57) than no‐consequence trial losses. There was no difference in self‐reported anger between revenge and bank trial loss feedback, t (26) = 1.31, p  = .202, d  = 0.22.

5.3. Flanker response reaction times

Incorrect flanker responses were removed from analysis (revenge trials: 86.35% retained; bank trials: 84.91% retained; no‐consequence trials: 83.48% retained). Reaction times were logarithmically transformed. A one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA revealed a nonsignificant, but marginal, main effect of flanker response reaction time, F (2, 54) = 2.54, p  = .089, ƞ p 2  = .09. Post hoc analyses revealed that reaction times to the flanker response on revenge trials were faster than reaction times on no‐consequence trials, t (27) = 1.80, p  = .022, d  = 0.34. Reaction times to the flanker response on bank trials were marginally faster than reaction times on no‐consequence trials, t (27) = 1.59, p  = .082, d  = 0.30. There were no differences in flanker response reaction time between revenge trials and bank trials, t (27) = 0.73, p  = .563, d  = 0.14. Both revenge trials and bank trials sped reaction times, as compared to no‐consequence trials.

5.4. The reward positivity

To examine differences in RewP amplitude between trial types, we conducted a 3 (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) × 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA. Results indicated that there were significant main effects of both trial type and feedback. Finally, there was a nonsignificant interaction (but the interaction bordered on significant; see Figures ​ Figures9, 9 , ​ ,10, 10 , ​ ,11, 11 , ​ ,12, 12 , ​ ,13 13 and Table ​ Table10 10 ). 10

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g009.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during revenge trials in Experiment 2, as well as the difference score between revenge trial wins and revenge trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Note that negative is plotted up by convention. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g010.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during bank trials in Experiment 2, as well as the difference score between bank trial wins and bank trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g011.jpg

Left: ERP waveforms for win and loss feedback during no‐consequence trials in Experiment 2, as well as the difference score between no‐consequence trial wins and no‐consequence trial losses (win minus loss) at site CZ. The RewP component is circled. Right: Scalp topography displaying the difference between wins and losses

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g012.jpg

ERP waveforms for win feedback during revenge, bank, and no‐consequence trials in Experiment 2 at site CZ

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is HBM-41-5032-g013.jpg

ERP waveforms for loss feedback during revenge, bank, and no‐consequence trials in Experiment 2 at site CZ

Statistical analyses for the reward positivity in Experiment 2

Based on hypotheses, we wanted to investigate how condition influenced win and loss feedback using a series of one‐way ANOVAs. For RewP amplitudes to win feedback, a one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) ANOVA was significant. Post hoc analyses revealed that the RewP to revenge trial wins was larger than the RewP to no‐consequence trial wins, t (32) = 4.63, p  < .001, d  = 0.81. Additionally, the RewP to bank trial wins was larger than the RewP to no‐consequence trial wins, t (32) = 1.78, p  = .047, d  = 0.31. Most importantly, the RewP to revenge trial wins was larger than the RewP to bank trial wins, t (32) = 2.18, p  = .041, d  = 0.38. Together, these results suggest that revenge trial wins elicit larger RewP amplitudes than both bank and no‐consequence trial wins, and bank trial wins elicit larger RewP amplitudes than no‐consequence trial wins.

For RewP amplitudes to loss feedback, a one‐way (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) repeated‐measures ANOVA was not significant.

Because the RewP has traditionally been examined by comparing amplitudes during win feedback to amplitudes during loss feedback, we conducted a dependent‐sample t ‐test within each trial type. Revenge trial wins elicited a larger RewP than revenge trial losses, t (32) = 4.22, p  < .001, d  = 0.73. There were no differences in RewP amplitudes between bank trial wins and bank trial losses ( t (32) = 0.81, p  = .424, d  = 0.14) or between no‐consequence trial wins and no‐consequence trial losses ( t (32) = 0.83, p  = .412, d  = 0.83). 11

5.5. Discussion for experiment 2

Experiment 2 revealed that, when angry, participants experienced more excitement to both revenge and bank trial cues than no‐consequence trial cues. This suggests that participants were experiencing approach‐motivated affective states during the pursuit of rewards. Additionally, both revenge and bank trial win feedback elicited more excitement than no‐consequence trial win feedback. Importantly, revenge trial win feedback elicited more excitement than bank trial win feedback. This suggests that participants experienced the most approach motivation to feedback in which anger could be ameliorated. Revenge and bank trial loss feedback elicited more anger than no‐consequence trial loss feedback. This suggests that participants experienced approach‐motivated affective states to angering feedback. Behavioral results based on flanker task reaction times support that participants were approach‐motivated by the revenge and bank conditions. Participants were faster to flanker responses following revenge and bank trial cues than no‐consequence trial cues. Together with self‐reported emotion, these results indicate that participants experienced increased approach‐motivated affect in revenge trials, followed by bank trials and no‐consequence trials, respectively.

RewP amplitudes were larger after revenge trial win feedback than after revenge trial loss feedback. Consistent with past work, these results suggest that the RewP is more sensitive to win feedback than loss feedback, particularly in approach‐motivated conditions. RewP amplitudes were also larger after both revenge trial win feedback and bank trial win feedback than no‐consequence trial win feedback. These results suggest that approach‐motivated states associated with a goal evoked larger RewPs than no‐consequence states. Most importantly, revenge trial win feedback elicited larger RewP amplitudes than bank trial win feedback. This suggests that situations in which the greatest amount of approach‐motivated affect should be present enhanced RewPs more than other approach‐motivating situations.

The present results found no difference in the RewP between wins and losses in the bank condition. Past research has found that the RewP reflects the binary evaluation of feedback as either positive or negative (Hajcak et al., 2006 ; Proudfit, 2015 ). However, Kujawa, Smith, Luhmann, and Hajcak ( 2012 ) found that the RewP was larger to positive outcomes than negative outcomes when accounting for the global context in which the win and loss is taking place. In their study, the RewP did not show differences between wins and losses for every trial type. Instead, the difference between wins and losses was only seen when the outcome represented the best possible outcome across all trial types. Thus, it could be the case that the RewP could be tracking the global context in which the feedback is occurring. As compared to the differences in revenge trial wins and losses, the bank and no‐consequence trials were not as rewarding. In the context of Experiment 2, it is likely that participants did not show the expected differences between wins and losses in the bank condition because they found wins in the revenge condition (where they could both win money and get revenge) to be more rewarding than simply winning money in the bank condition. Rather than simply tracking whether or not the feedback was positive or negative, participants also tracked the outcome in relation to all other possible outcomes.

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION

Results from two experiments revealed that approach‐motivated anger enhanced the RewP to revenge opportunities. Importantly, these effects occurred regardless of outcome valence. These results are consistent with the idea that the RewP (and, more broadly, feedback monitoring in general) is not strictly due to whether feedback is positive or negative, but, rather, incorporates the motivational salience of outcomes. Outcomes higher in motivational salience evoke larger RewPs, irrespective of outcome valence.

The finding that greater RewP amplitudes to revenge trial win feedback than revenge trial loss feedback in those who are made angry by an insult manipulation is in line with past work finding that approach‐motivated positive win feedback elicits a larger RewP than loss feedback (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ). However, in Experiment 1, there was no difference between win feedback and loss feedback for aggravation trials. In Experiment 2, there was no difference between win feedback and loss feedback for bank trials. This falls in line with the hypothesis that the RewP reflects general motivational salience, not outcome valence (Huang & Yu, 2014 ; Pfabigan, Alexopoulos, Bauer, & Sailer, 2011 ). In the current experiments, all included individuals were angry at their opponent, due to the insulting feedback on the essay. For revenge trials, participants were motivated to win the reward of blasting the insulter with a loud noise (Experiment 1) or taking the insulter's money (Experiment 2). It is likely the case that participants did not exhibit differences between win and loss feedback during aggravation trials (Experiment 1) or bank trials (Experiment 2) because these conditions were not the most motivationally salient outcomes. In Experiment 1, participants would rather win the opportunity to blast their opponent with a loud noise than be blasted with a loud noise. In Experiment 2, while participants did report more excitement to winning money from the bank than winning in a no‐consequence trial, participants also reported experiencing more excitement to winning money from the offending opponent than winning money from the bank. These results suggest that winning money from the bank was less motivationally salient than winning money as revenge. Together, results suggest that more motivationally salient outcomes, not outcome valence, elicited in differences between neural responses to wins and losses.

In Experiment 1, participants experienced approach motivation during aggravation trials by beating the insulter and receiving winning feedback. When participants received win feedback in aggravation trials, they experienced approach‐motivated excitement, because they blocked the insulter from winning a reward. Participants were also approach‐motivated when they lost during aggravation trials, because they were angered by the injustice of losing to an opponent who had previously insulted them. Participants were already angry at the opponent for insulting the participant via the disparaging feedback on the essay. Aggravation trials increased approach‐motivated anger because not only did the opponent insult the participant via disparaging feedback on the essay, but the insulter was also able to blast the participant with a loud noise. Aggravation trial win feedback led to approach‐motivated positive affect (excitement), while aggravation trial losses led to approach‐motivated negative affect (anger). Approach motivation enhanced RewP amplitudes to both wins and losses, relative to a no‐consequence state, suggesting that motivational salience, not feedback outcome, drove reward processing.

Experiment 2 built on the results of Experiment 1 by removing the possibility for participants to experience an increase in approach‐motivated anger via the aggravation trials. In Experiment 2, participants who were made angry by the insult manipulation experienced approach motivation during bank trials by beating the insulter and receiving winning feedback. When participants received win feedback in bank trials, they experienced approach‐motivated excitement, because they won money, even though the money was from a general bank and not their opponent. As revealed by both excitement ratings to the trial outcomes and RewP amplitudes, participants expressed greater excitement and displayed larger RewP amplitudes to revenge trial wins than bank trial wins. Notably, this occurred even though participants reported experiencing greater excitement and exhibiting larger RewP amplitudes to bank trial wins than no‐consequence trial wins. Wining money via revenge appears to elicit more approach‐motivated affect than simply winning money from a general bank.

Interestingly, in Experiment 2, revenge trial wins elicited larger RewP amplitudes than revenge trial losses, while there was no difference in RewP amplitude between wins and losses in the bank condition. This likely occurred because past research has found that outcome evaluation occurs within the overall context in which feedback is presented (Kujawa et al., 2012 ; Van den Berg, Shaul, Van der Veen, & Franker, 2012 ). It is likely the case that bank trials did not elicit enough approach motivation to cause a significant difference in RewP amplitudes between wins and losses, because other trials (i.e., revenge trials) both rewarded the participant with money and punished an offending opponent. Even though bank trials were both rated as more exciting and elicited marginally faster reaction times to the flanker response than no‐consequence trials (which suggests that approach motivation was increased, relative to no‐consequence trials), it seems that revenge trials, because they were the most motivationally salient, elicited differences in the RewP between wins and losses, while bank trials did not. Thus, while participants did experience approach motivation during bank trials, participants experienced the most approach motivation when they were able to win money and punish the insulter at the same time.

6.1. The reward positivity and approach motivation

The current research was based on past evidence linking the RewP with approach motivation (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ). Consistent with past work, individuals who were made angry by the insult manipulation exhibited larger RewPs to feedback while in approach motivated states (Experiment 1). Furthermore, in Experiment 2, we isolated the unique role of approach motivation on the RewP by giving participants the opportunity to win money from either an offending opponent or a neutral third‐party bank. Results indicated that individuals exhibited the largest RewP during the most motivationally salient outcome: both winning money and gaining the opportunity for revenge by punishing an offending opponent.

The current results are the first to demonstrate that negative approach‐motivated affects increase feedback processing sensitivity. Past research has focused on the role of positive approach‐motivated states on reward processing. By showing that negative approach‐motivated affects increase the RewP, results suggest that approach motivation, not outcome valence, is driving reward sensitivity. Building on past work, it appears that approach motivation, regardless of valence, enhances processing of feedback indicating successful goal pursuit.

6.2. Anger, revenge, and pleasure

The present work provides further evidence for the role of both anger and pleasure in revengeful behaviors. Revenge is an act driven by the desire to see some transgressor suffer (Zaibert, 2006 ). Of key importance is the notion that revenge (usually) occurs in response to some aversive event (Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ). Presumably, the perceived injustice arouses negative affects such as anger, leading to an attempt to resolve the anger‐inducing event (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ). This behavior may have arisen as an evolutionary adaptation, in that aggressive behaviors from revenge are attempts to increase the likelihood of survival (Olivier & Young, 2002 ). Anger emanates in response to some obstacle, motivating an organism to find ways to remove that impediment. In the current experiments, participants experienced a negative situation by receiving insulting feedback from an opponent. Participants were then given the opportunity to get revenge against their opponent by either blasting them with loud noises (Experiment 1) or taking money from them (Experiment 2). Thus, participants were primed to seek revenge against their insulter as a result of their anger, suggesting that approach‐motivated anger motivated revenge seeking. The present results provide evidence that revenge is used as a tool to rectify angering situations.

Individuals often partake in anger‐driven revengeful acts because they believe these behaviors will lead to a positive experience or positive feelings (Bushman, 2002 ; Chester & DeWall, 2017 ). This increase in positive affect after an aggressive reaction occurs because the individual believes that justice has been delivered to the transgressor (Frijda, 1994 ). The current results provide the first evidence that individuals who are made angry by an instigator, for at least a moment, exhibit neural signatures associated with pleasure (and, therefore, likely actually experience increases in pleasure) when winning the opportunity to get revenge against their transgressor. By using neurophysiological methods capable of measuring momentary fluctuations in emotional state, the present results found that participants who were angry exhibited increases in neural signatures of reward processing when winning the opportunity to get revenge against an offending individual. Thus, it seems likely that approach‐motivated anger leads to revengeful acts out of a desire to experience pleasure from seeing the transgressor suffer. Furthermore, the current experiments provide evidence that individuals actually experience more pleasure when winning the opportunity to seek revenge against an offending opponent.

Additionally, the current research addresses an important lacuna in past research examining the relationship between revenge, pleasure, and neural processing. While past work using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has found that acts of revenge activate regions of the brain associated with reward processing, such as the dorsal striatum (de Quervain et al., 2004 ), ventral striatum (Chester & DeWall, 2018 ), and nucleus accumbens (Chester & DeWall, 2016 ), the present research examines the momentary neural responses to winning the opportunity to aggress against an offending opponent. The present experiments provide evidence that individuals who are angry at a transgressor exhibit neural signatures of pleasure immediately after winning the opportunity to seek revenge against an offending opponent. Crucially, this occurred following the activation of approach‐motivated anger, which motivated individuals to seek revenge against their transgressor. By showing that anger, a negative affect associated with approach motivation, increases reward sensitivity to the motivationally salient outcome of winning the opportunity for revenge, the present research provides further support for the proposition of revenge as pleasurable.

6.3. Limitations and future directions

One of the main issues in emotion research is that a specific emotion manipulation often elicits a multitude of different emotions (Ekman, 1984 ; Ekman et al., 1980 ). Participants are not always able to express the magnitude of each emotion felt during a specific emotion manipulation via self‐report questionnaires (Moore & Oaksford, 2002 ). While self‐report questionnaires do add important information about the emotional states experienced toward a stimulus, self‐reported emotion by itself can be an unreliable assessment of emotion (Stemmler, 2003 ). In addition, measures of self‐report can disrupt the emotional state.

In the current experiments, the target emotion of anger after being insulted was assessed using frontal asymmetry, a well‐validated psychophysiological signature of anger (Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990 ; Shackman et al., 2006 ). While left frontal asymmetry has been found to relate to other psychological processes besides anger (for a review, see Gable et al., 2018 ; Harmon‐Jones & Gable, 2018 ; Harmon‐Jones, Gable, & Peterson, 2010 ), a wealth of research has demonstrated a relationship between left frontal asymmetry and an insult manipulation (Harmon‐Jones, Peterson, & Harris, 2009 ; Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ; Jensen‐Campbell et al., 2007 ; Kelley et al., 2015 ; Verona et al., 2009 ). In both experiments, participants were excluded on the basis of neurophysiological markers indicative of approach‐motivated anger, measured independently of the main variable of interest. Utilizing frontal asymmetry allowed us to focus on participants who experienced approach‐motivated anger in response the insult and were motivated to seek revenge on their opponent. This allowed for a more precise examination of how approach‐motivated anger affects the RewP. As with any exclusion, this had a decrease on statistical power to detect an effect. However, because all included participants were strongly displaying approach‐motivated anger, this likely increased the strength of the revenge and aggravation manipulations.

Another limitation is that the paradigm took approximately 50 min to complete. Although none of the participants reporting fatigued by the task in either study, it is likely the case that participants were less energetic by the end of the task than at the beginning. Now that these studies have demonstrated the validity of the MAD to measure approach‐motivated revenge, future studies might benefit from shortening the task to be completed more quickly.

The present research provides a novel task by which to examine momentary positive reactions to revengeful aggression. Much research examining the relationship between anger, pleasure, and revengeful aggression have used self‐report measures to examine the pleasurable aspects of revenge, which may not always be reliable. Furthermore, other aggression paradigms, such as the Taylor Aggression Paradigm, combine outcomes that result in aggression (i.e., winning the opportunity to aggress against an opponent or losing that results in the opponent aggressing against the participant) into a single trial type. The current experiments provide a new aggression paradigm, known as the MAD paradigm, by which future research can compare the momentary emotional reactions to winning the opportunity to seek revenge to the momentary emotional reactions to losing that results in the opponent aggressing against the participant. Future research can use the present paradigm to understand the underlying reactions to every aspect of revenge, such as the pursuit of revenge, the actual obtainment of the opportunity to seek revenge, and the actual process of partaking in revengeful behaviors.

The current article focused on looking at provoked acts of aggression and not unprovoked acts of aggression. Because all participants were provoked in the current experiments, there is not an unprovoked comparison group. As such, the current experiments cannot compare aggression against an offending opponent from aggression against a nonoffending opponent. Future research could also use a version of the MAD paradigm with neutral or positive feedback to the essay manipulation as a between‐subjects factor to examine how different emotional states relate to revenge or, more broadly, general opportunities for aggression.

Furthermore, the MAD paradigm is versatile, in that aspects of the design can be manipulated depending on the population being studied. For example, the current version of the MAD paradigm uses negative feedback about an essay written by the participant, ostensibly from another participant. Researchers studying young children could change the specific anger provocation of the MAD paradigm to a more developmentally appropriate anger provocation that is easier for children to comprehend (such as Cyberball; Chester & DeWall, 2017 ).

The MAD paradigm should be useful to study clinical populations who exhibit persistent antisocial behavior, including psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. This is especially pertinent considering that that the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative accentuates the need to understand individual differences in psychological disorders via core neurobiological systems (Cuthbert & Insel, 2013 ; Sanislow et al., 2010 ). By understanding the neural underpinnings of maladaptive behaviors within these clinical populations, researchers may be able to understand what neural processes are occurring during the actual perpetuation of these misanthropic behaviors, and, therefore, provide a better understanding of cognitive functioning within these clinical populations.

6.4. Conclusions

Recent research has found that the RewP is sensitive to approach‐motivated states that occur during the pursuit of a goal (Meadows, Gable, Lohse, & Miller, 2016 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ). The current experiments found that anger, a high intensity approach‐motivated negative affect, enhances the RewP, especially when that goal brings about revenge. RewP amplitudes were larger to feedback indicating the offending individual was rewarded due to an increase in aggravation. Together, these results suggest that the RewP reflects an active performance monitoring system influenced by approach‐motivated goal states, regardless of affective valence. Anger generates approach‐motivated action tendencies, which influences action‐monitoring processes associated with the RewP (Brehm, 1999 ; Carver & Harmon‐Jones, 2009 ). Organisms are driven to approach a specific outcome, enhancing performance monitoring and feedback processing in order to potentially aid future goal pursuit.

The present results suggest that anger, a high intensity approach motivated negative affect, amplifies the RewP when winning the ability to seek revenge and prevent further aggravation. Past work has typically only found that approach motivation enhances processing of winning feedback, confounding valence and motivation (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ). However, the present work's unique experimental design allowed us to evoke negative approach‐motivated affect, finding that approach motivation in general enhances feedback processing to revenge opportunities, regardless of outcome valence. This is in line with a growing body of work suggesting that motivational salience, rather than valence, drives neural correlates of reward processing (Pfabigan et al., 2015 ).

ACKONWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Kary Reynolds and Samantha Thomas for their help in data collection and processing.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supporting information

Appendix S1. Supporting Information.

Appendix S1. Tables.

Threadgill AH, Gable PA. Revenge is sweet: Investigation of the effects of Approach‐Motivated anger on the RewP in the motivated anger delay (MAD) paradigm . Hum Brain Mapp . 2020; 41 :5032–5056. 10.1002/hbm.25177 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 All procedures and analyses for Experiment 1 were preregistered to a Thesis committee at the University of Alabama prior to data collection.

2 We did not assess emotional states via self‐report after the delivery of the insulting feedback for two reasons. First, asking participants to reevaluate their emotional state after the feedback delivery likely would have altered their emotional state in a way that they would have felt less anger (Hauser, Ellsworth, & Gonzalez, 2018 ). Second, previous research using this paradigm has found that insulting feedback increases anger, relative to a neutral condition, while not increasing fear, distress, sadness, and happiness (Harmon‐Jones et al., 2004 ; Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001 ). For these reasons, we did not assess emotional states via self‐report after the delivery of the insulting feedback. Rather, anger was assessed as increases in left frontal activation following the insulting feedback, as compared to the baseline measurement before the delivery of the insult.

3 Past work has measured resting left frontal asymmetry using an 8 min baseline period (Neal & Gable, 2017 ). However, both shortened baseline periods demonstrated excellent reliability that is similar to past work (Neal & Gable, 2017 , found that resting frontal asymmetry over an 8 min baseline period demonstrated Cronbach's alpha of .97).

4 While much research has examined the RewP at site FCz, some work has argued that there may be variance in the topography of the maximal RewP (Krigolson, 2018 ). Indeed, some work has found that the RewP is maximal at site Fz (Van den Berg, Franken, & Muris, 2011 ), while others have found that the RewP is maximal at site Cz (Holroyd, Pakzad‐Vaezi, & Krigolson, 2008 ; Threadgill & Gable, 2016 , 2018b ).

5 An independent sample t ‐test indicated that excluded participants ( n = 16, M  = −0.11, SD = 0.28) had a significantly smaller change in relative left frontal alpha activity following the anger induction than the non‐excluded participants ( n = 44, M = 0.22, SD = 0.20), t (58) = 5.05, p < .001. A one‐sample t ‐test indicated that the remaining participants exhibited a significant increase in relative left frontal alpha activity following the anger induction, t (43) = 7.22, p < .001. Furthermore, to ensure that we did not bias the selected sample to show RewP differences across conditions, we conducted correlations between relative left frontal alpha activity and the RewP to revenge trial win feedback for both participants included for analysis and participants excluded for analysis. Both correlations were not significant, p’s > .689.

6 A 3 (trial type) x 2 (outcome) repeated‐measure ANOVA examining the RewP that included all participants, including those who were originally excluded, did not reveal a significant interaction, F (2, 108) = 0.97, p  = .382, ƞ p 2  = .02.

7 Because the RewP can potentially have strong temporal overlap with the P3 (Holroyd, Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, & Cohen, 2003 ; Novak & Foti, 2015 ), we also examined the P3 to feedback. Based on past research, the P3 was assessed at site CZ within a window of 350–600 ms after feedback onset (Threadgill & Gable, 2016 ; Weinberg, Luhmann, Bress, & Hajcak, 2012 ). A 3 (trial type: revenge vs. no‐consequence vs. aggravation) x 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA for the P3 did not reveal a significant interaction, F (2, 82) = 1.60, p  = .208, ƞ p 2  = .04.

8 A dependent‐sample t ‐test comparing the amount of money taken from the offending opponent ( M = 13.33, SD = 3.08) and the amount of money taken from the bank ( M = 13.80, SD = 2.38) was not significant, t (25) = 1.32, p  = .199, d = 0.26, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.65]. Participants took the same amount of money, regardless of the source.

9 An independent sample t ‐test indicated that excluded participants ( n = 21, M  = −0.12, SD = 0.08) had a significantly smaller change in relative left frontal alpha activity following the anger induction than the non‐excluded participants ( n = 36, M = 0.15, SD = 0.12), t (55) = 9.02, p < .001. A one‐sample t ‐test indicated that the remaining participants exhibited a significant increase in relative left frontal activity following the anger induction, t (35) = 7.48, p < .001. Furthermore, to ensure that we did not bias the selected sample to show RewP differences across conditions, we conducted correlations between relative left frontal alpha activity and the RewP to revenge trial win feedback for both participants included for analysis and participants excluded for analysis. Both correlations were not significant, p’s > .276.

10 A 3 (trial type) x 2 (outcome) repeated‐measure ANOVA examining the RewP that included all participants, including those who were originally excluded, did not reveal a significant interaction, F (2, 104) = 0.66, p  = .520, ƞ p 2  = .01.

11 Because the RewP can potentially have strong temporal overlap with the P3 (Holroyd et al., 2003 ; Novak & Foti, 2015 ), we, once again, examined the P3 to feedback. Similar to Experiment 1, the P3 was assessed at site CZ within a window of 350–600 ms after feedback onset. A 3 (trial type: revenge vs. bank vs. no‐consequence) x 2 (outcome: win vs. loss) repeated‐measures ANOVA for the P3 did not reveal a significant interaction, F (2, 68) = 0.25, p  = .779, ƞ p 2  = .007.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

  • Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression . Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baker, T. , & Holroyd, C. (2011). Dissociated roles of the anterior cingulate cortex in reward and conflict processing as revealed by the feedback error‐related negativity and N200 . Biological Psychology , 87 ( 1 ), 25–34. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.01.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bartholow, B. D. , & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 38 ( 3 ), 283–290. 10.1006/jesp.2001.1502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Basso, M. R. , Schefft, B. K. , & Hoffman, R. G. (1994). Mood‐moderating effects of affect intensity on cognition: Sometimes euphoria is not beneficial and dysphoria is not detrimental . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 ( 2 ), 363–368. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.363 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baumeister, R. F. , Vohs, K. D. , DeWall, C. N. , & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 11 ( 2 ), 167–203. 10.1177/1088868307301033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration‐aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation . Psychological Bulletin , 106 ( 1 ), 59–73. 10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berkowitz, L. , Jaffee, S. , Jo, E. , & Troccoli, B. T. (2001). On the correction of feeling‐induced judgmental bias In Forgas J. P. (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition and behavior Studies in emotion and social interaction, second series (pp. 131–152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brehm, J. W. (1999). The intensity of emotion . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 3 ( 1 ), 2–22. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bromberg‐Martin, E. S. , Matsumoto, M. , & Hikosaka, O. (2010). Dopamine in motivational control: Rewarding, aversive, and alerting . Neuron , 68 ( 5 ), 815–834. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brush, C. J. , Ehmann, P. J. , Hajcak, G. , Selby, E. A. , & Alderman, B. L. (2018). Using multilevel modeling to examine blunted neural responses to reward in major depression . Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , 3 ( 12 ), 1032–1039. 10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.04.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 ( 6 ), 724–731. 10.1177/0146167202289002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bushman, B. J. , & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self‐esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self‐love or self‐hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 ( 1 ), 219–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bushman, B. J. , Baumeister, R. F. , & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 ( 1 ), 17–32. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.17 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carlsmith, K. M. , & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 193–236. 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00004-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carlson, J. M. , Foti, D. , Mujica‐Parodi, L. R. , Harmon‐Jones, E. , & Hajcak, G. (2011). Ventral striatal and medial prefrontal BOLD activation is correlated with reward‐related electrocortical activity: A combined ERP and fMRI study . NeuroImage , 57 ( 4 ), 1608–1616. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.037 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carver, C. S. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach‐related affect: Evidence and implications . Psychological Bulletin , 135 ( 2 ), 183–204. 10.1037/a0013965 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. (2017). The role of positive affect in aggression . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 26 ( 4 ), 366–370. 10.1177/0963721417700457 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. , & DeWall, C. N. (2016). Sound the alarm: The effect of narcissism on retaliatory aggression is moderated by dACC reactivity to rejection . Journal of Personality , 84 ( 3 ), 316–368. 10.1111/jopy.12164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. , & DeWall, C. N. (2017). Combating the sting of rejection with the pleasure of revenge: A new look at how emotion shapes aggression . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 112 ( 3 ), 413–430. 10.1037/pspi0000080 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. , & DeWall, C. N. (2018). Aggression is associated with greater subsequent alcohol consumption: A shared neural basis in the ventral striatum . Aggressive Behavior , 44 ( 3 ), 285–293. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. , DeWall, C. N. , Derefinko, K. J. , Estus, S. , Lynam, D. R. , Peters, J. R. , & Jiang, Y. (2016). Looking for reward in all the wrong places: Dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms indirectly affect aggression through sensation‐seeking . Social Neuroscience , 11 ( 5 ), 497 10.1080/17470919.2015.1119191 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chester, D. S. , Merwin, L. M. , & DeWall, C. N. (2015). Maladaptive perfectionism's link to aggression and self‐harm: Emotion regulation as a mechanism . Aggressive Behavior , 41 ( 5 ), 443–454. 10.1002/ab.21578 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Coan, J. A. , & Allen, J. J. (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion . Biological Psychology , 67 ( 1 ), 7–50. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cuthbert, B. N. , & Insel, T. R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDoC . BMC Medicine , 11 , 126 10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • d'Alfonso, A. A. L. , van Honk, J. , Hermans, E. , Postma, A. , & de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). Laterality effects in selective attention to threat after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the prefrontal cortex in female subjects . Neuroscience Letters , 280 ( 3 ), 195–198. 10.1016/S0304-3940(00)00781-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davidson, R. J. , Ekman, P. , Saron, C. D. , Senulis, J. A. , & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Approach‐withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain physiology: I . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58 ( 2 ), 330–341. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.330 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • de Quervain, D. J. F. , Fischbacher, U. , Treyer, V. , Schellhammer, M. , Schnyder, U. , Buck, A. , & Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment . Science , 305 ( 5688 ), 1254–1258. 10.1126/science.1100735 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dollard, J. , Miller, N. E. , Doob, L. W. , Mowrer, O. H. , & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression . New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press; 10.1037/10022-000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion In Scherer K. & Ehan P. (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ekman, P. , Friesen, W. V. , & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 ( 6 ), 1125–1134. 10.1037/h0077722 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Eriksen, B. A. , & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task . Perception & Psychophysics , 16 ( 1 ), 143–149. 10.3758/BF03203267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Esber, G. R. , & Haselgrove, M. (2011). Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: A model of attention in associative learning . Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 278 ( 1718 ), 2553–2561. 10.1098/rspb.2011.0836 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Faul, F. , Erdfelder, E. , Lang, A. G. , & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences . Behavior Research Methods , 39 ( 2 ), 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Feinberg, J. (1970). Doing & deserving: Essays in the theory of responsibility . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Foti, D. , Weinberg, A. , Dien, J. , & Hajcak, G. (2011). Event‐related potential activity in the basal ganglia differentiates rewards from nonrewards: Temporospatial principal components analysis and source localization of the feedback negativity . Human Brain Mapping , 32 ( 12 ), 2207–2216. 10.1002/hbm.21182 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Frijda, N. H. (1994). Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments In Ekman P. & Davidson R. J. (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 59–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gable, P. A. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2009). Postauricular reflex responses to pictures varying in valence and arousal . Psychophysiology , 46 ( 3 ), 487–490. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00794.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gable, P. A. , Neal, L. B. , & Threadgill, A. H. (2018). Regulatory behavior and frontal asymmetry: Considering the role of revised‐BIS in relative right frontal asymmetry . Psychophysiology , 55 ( 1 ), e12910 10.1111/psyp.12910 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gable, P. A. , & Poole, B. D. (2014). Influence of trait behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach motivation systems on the LPP and frontal asymmetry to anger pictures . Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience. , 9 ( 2 ), 182–190. 10.1093/scan/nss130 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gable, P. A. , Poole, B. D. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2015). Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109 ( 1 ), 163–174. 10.1037/a0039226 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gable, P. A. , Threadgill, A. H. , & Adams, D. L. (2016). Neural activity underlying motor‐action preparation and cognitive narrowing in approach‐motivated goal states . Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience , 16 ( 1 ), 145–152. 10.3758/s13415-015-0381-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gehring, W. J. , & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses . Science , 295 ( 5563 ), 2279–2282. 10.1126/science.1066893 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Grobbink, L. H. , Derksen, J. J. L. , & van Marle, H. J. C. (2015). Revenge: An analysis of its psychological underpinnings . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 59 ( 8 ), 892–907. 10.1177/0306624X13519963 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hajcak, G. , Moser, J. S. , Holroyd, C. B. , & Simons, R. F. (2006). The feedback‐related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes . Biological Psychology , 71 ( 2 ), 148–154. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, C. , Schmeichel, B. J. , Mennitt, E. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2011). The expression of determination: Similarities between anger and approach‐related positive affect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 ( 1 ), 172–181. 10.1037/a0020966 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. (2004). On the relationship of frontal brain activity and anger: Examining the role of attitude toward anger . Cognition and Emotion , 18 ( 3 ), 337–361. 10.1080/02699930341000059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , & Gable, P. A. (2018). On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in approach and withdrawal motivation: An updated review of the evidence . Psychophysiology , 55 ( 1 ), e1879 10.1111/psyp.12879 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Gable, P. A. , & Peterson, C. K. (2010). The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion‐related phenomena: A review and update . Biological Psychology , 84 ( 3 ), 451–462. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.08.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Harmon‐Jones, C. , & Price, T. F. (2013). What is approach motivation? Emotion Review , 5 ( 3 ), 291–295. 10.1177/1754073913477509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , & Peterson, C. K. (2009). Supine body position reduces neural response to anger evocation . Psychological Science , 20 ( 10 ), 1209–1210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Peterson, C. K. , & Harris, C. R. (2009). Jealousy: Novel methods and neural correlates . Emotion , 9 ( 1 ), 113–117. 10.1037/a0014117 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Price, T. F. , Peterson, C. K. , Gable, P. A. , & Harmon‐Jones, C. (2013). The influence of behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition sensitivities on emotive cognitive processes In Robinson M. D., Watkins E. R., & Harmon‐Jones E. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 329–346). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult‐related relative left‐prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 ( 5 ), 797–803. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.797 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Sigelman, J. , Bohlig, A. , & Harmon‐Jones, C. (2003). Anger, coping and frontal cortical activity: The effect of coping potential on anger‐induced left frontal activity . Cognition and Emotion , 17 ( 1 ), 1–24. 10.1080/02699930302278 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harmon‐Jones, E. , Vaughn‐Scott, K. , Mohr, S. , Sigelman, J. , & Harmon‐Jones, C. (2004). The effect of manipulated sympathy and anger on left and right frontal cortical activity . Emotion , 4 ( 1 ), 95–101. 10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.95 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hauser, D. J. , Ellsworth, P. C. , & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 998 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Higgins, E. T. , Shah, J. , & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as a moderator . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 ( 3 ), 515–525. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.515 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hird, E. J. , El‐Deredy, W. , Jones, A. , & Talmi, D. (2018). Temporal dissociation of salience and prediction error responses to appetitive and aversive taste . Psychophysiology , 55 ( 2 ), e12976 10.1111/psyp.12976 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holroyd, C. B. , & Coles, M. G. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error‐related negativity . Psychological Review , 109 ( 4 ), 679–709. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.679 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holroyd, C. B. , Krigolson, O. E. , & Lee, S. (2011). Reward positivity elicited by predictive cues . Neuroreport , 22 ( 5 ), 249–252. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328345441d [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holroyd, C. B. , Nieuwenhuis, S. , Yeung, N. , & Cohen, J. D. (2003). Errors in reward prediction are reflected in the event‐related brain potential . Neuroreport , 14 ( 18 ), 2481–2484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holroyd, C. B. , Pakzad‐Vaezi, K. L. , & Krigolson, O. E. (2008). The feedback correct‐related positivity: Sensitivity of the event‐related brain potential to unexpected positive feedback . Psychophysiology , 45 ( 5 ), 688–697. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00668.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holroyd, C. B. , & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 16 ( 2 ), 122–128. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hortensius, R. , Schutter, D. J. L. G. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2012). When anger leads to aggression: Induction of relative left frontal cortical activity with transcranial direct current stimulation increases the anger‐aggression relationship . Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience , 7 ( 3 ), 342–347. 10.1093/scan/nsr012 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Huang, Y. , & Yu, R. (2014). The feedback‐related negativity reflects “more or less” prediction error in appetitive and aversive conditions . Frontiers in Neuroscience , 8 ( 108 ), 108 10.3389/fnins.2014.00108 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions . New York, NY: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jameison, J. P. , Koslov, K. , Nock, M. K. , & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Experiencing discrimination increases risk‐taking . Psychological Science , 24 ( 2 ), 131–139. 10.1177/0956797612448194 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jensen‐Campbell, L. A. , Knack, J. M. , Waldrip, A. M. , & Campbell, S. D. (2007). Do big five personality traits associated with self‐control influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of Research in Personality , 41 ( 2 ), 403–424. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kelley, N. J. , Eastwick, P. W. , Harmon‐Jones, E. , & Schmeichel, B. J. (2015). Jealousy induced by relative left frontal cortical activity . Emotion , 15 ( 5 ), 550–555. 10.1037/emo0000068 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Keune, P. M. , van der Heiden, L. , Várkuti, B. , Konicar, L. , Veit, R. , & Birbaumer, N. (2012). Prefrontal brain asymmetry and aggression in imprisoned violent offenders . Neuroscience Letters , 515 ( 2 ), 191–195. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.058 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Knutson, B. (2004). Sweet revenge? Science , 305 ( 5688 ), 1246–1247. 10.1126/science.1102822 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Knutson, B. , Westdorp, A. , Kaiser, E. , & Hommer, D. (2000). FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task . NeuroImage , 12 ( 1 ), 20–27. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0593 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Krigolson, O. E. (2018). Event‐related brain potentials and the study of reward processing: Methodological considerations . International Journal of Psychophysiology , 132 , 175–183. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Krigolson, O. E. , Hassall, C. D. , & Handy, T. C. (2014). How we learn to make decisions: Rapid propagation of reinforcement learning prediction errors in humans . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 26 ( 3 ), 635–644. 10.1162/jocn_a_00509 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kubrin, C. E. , & Weitzer, R. (2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture . Social Problems , 50 ( 2 ), 157–180. 10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.157 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kujawa, A. , Smith, E. , Luhmann, C. , & Hajcak, G. (2012). The feedback negativity reflects favorable compared to nonfavorable outcomes based on global, not local, alternatives . Psychophysiology , 50 ( 2 ), 134–138. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuper, N. , Käckenmester, W. , & Wacker, J. (2019). Resting frontal EEG asymmetry and personality traits: A meta‐analysis . European Journal of Personality , 33 ( 2 ), 154–175. 10.1002/per.2197 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Laufs, H. , Kleinschmidt, A. , Beyerle, A. , Eger, E. , Salek‐Haddadi, A. , Preibisch, C. , & Krakow, K. (2003). EEG‐correlated fMRI of human alpha activity . NeuroImage , 19 ( 4 ), 1463–1476. 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00286-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lerner, J. S. , & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 ( 1 ), 146–159. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lindsley, D. B. , & Wicke, J. D. (1974). The electroencephalogram: Autonomous electrical activity in man and animals In Thompson R. & Patterson M. N. (Eds.), Bioelectric recording techniques (pp. 3–79). New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meadows, C. C. , Gable, P. A. , Lohse, K. R. , & Miller, M. W. (2016). The effects of reward magnitude on reward processing: An averaged and single trial event‐related potential study . Biological Psychology , 118 , 154–160. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.06.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moore, S. C. , & Oaksford, M. (2002). Some long‐term effects of emotion on cognition . British Journal of Psychology , 93 ( 3 ), 383–395. 10.1348/000712602760146341 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Neal, L. B. , & Gable, P. A. (2017). Regulatory control and impulsivity relate to resting frontal activity . Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience , 12 ( 9 ), 1377–1383. 10.1093/scan/nsx080 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Novak, K. D. , & Foti, D. (2015). Teasing apart the anticipatory and consummatory processing of monetary incentives: An event‐related potential study of reward dynamics . Psychophysiology , 52 ( 11 ), 1470–1482. 10.1111/psyp.12504 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Olivier, B. , & Young, L. J. (2002). Animal models of aggression In Davis K. L., Charney D., Coyle J. T., & Nemeroff C. (Eds.), Neuropsychopharmacology: The fifth generation of progress (pp. 1699–1708). Philidelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkens. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Oliveira, F. T. P. , McDonald, J. J. , & Goodman, D. (2007). Performance monitoring in the anterior cingulate is not all error related: Expectancy deviation and the representation of action‐outcome associations . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 ( 12 ), 1994–2004. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.1994 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peterson, C. K. , Gravens, L. C. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2011). Asymmetric frontal cortical activity and negative affective responses to ostracism . Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience , 6 ( 3 ), 277–285. 10.1093/scan/nsq027 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peterson, C. K. , Shackman, A. J. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2008). The role of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity in aggression . Psychophysiology , 45 ( 1 ), 86–92. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00597.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pfabigan, D. M. , Alexopoulos, J. , Bauer, H. , & Sailer, U. (2011). Manipulation of feedback expectancy and valence induces negative and positive prediction error signals manifest in event‐related brain potentials . Psychophysiology , 48 ( 5 ), 656–664. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01136.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pfabigan, D. M. , Seidel, E. , Paul, K. , Grahl, A. , Sailer, U. , Lanzenberger, R. , … Lamm, C. (2015). Context‐sensitivity of the feedback‐related negativity for zero‐value feedback outcomes . Biological Psychology , 104 , 184–192. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.12.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pizzagalli, D. A. , Sherwood, R. J. , Henriques, J. B. , & Davidson, R. J. (2005). Frontal brain asymmetry and reward responsiveness: A source‐localization study . Psychological Science , 16 ( 10 ), 805–813. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01618.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Poole, B. D. , & Gable, P. A. (2014). Affective motivational direction drives asymmetric frontal hemispheric activation . Experimental Brain Research , 232 ( 7 ), 2121–2130. 10.1007/s00221-014-3902-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Proudfit, G. H. (2015). The reward positivity: From basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression . Psychophysiology , 52 ( 4 ), 449–459. 10.1111/psyp.12370 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ramirez, J. M. , Bonniot‐Cabanac, M. , & Cabanac, M. (2005). Can aggression provide pleasure? European Psychologist , 10 , 136–145. 10.1027/1016-9040.10.2.136 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2017). Emotion in action: A predictive processing perspective and theoretical synthesis . Emotion Review , 9 ( 4 ), 319–325. 10.1177/1754073916661765 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rottenberg, J. , Kovacs, M. , & Yaroslavsky, I. (2017). Non‐response to sad mood induction: Implications for emotion research . Cognition and Emotion , 32 ( 3 ), 431–436. 10.1080/02699931.2017.1321527 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sanislow, C. A. , Pine, D. S. , Quinn, K. J. , Kozak, M. J. , Garvey, M. A. , Heinssen, R. K. , … Cuthbert, B. N. (2010). Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 119 ( 4 ), 631–639. 10.1037/a0020909 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schultz, W. (2007). Behavioral dopamine signals . Trends in Neurosciences , 30 ( 5 ), 203–210. 10.1016/j.tins.2007.03.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schumann, K. , & Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 4 ( 12 ), 1193–1205. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Semlitsch, H. V. , Anderer, P. , Schuster, P. , & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP . Psychophysiology , 23 ( 6 ), 695–703. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00696.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shackman, A. J. , Sarinopoulos, I. , Maxwell, J. S. , Pizzagelli, D. A. , Lavric, A. , & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory . Emotion , 6 ( 1 ), 40–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stemmler, G. (2003). Methodological considerations in the psychophysiological study of emotion In Davidson R. J., Goldsmith H. H., & Scherer K. R. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 225–255). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sutton, R. S. , & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Talmi, D. , Atkinson, R. , & El‐Deredy, W. (2013). The feedback‐related negativity signals salience prediction errors, not reward prediction errors . The Journal of Neuroscience , 33 ( 19 ), 8264–8269. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5695-12.2013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Taylor, S. P. (1966). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression . Journal of Personality , 35 ( 2 ), 297–310. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , & Gable, P. A. (2016). Approach‐motivated pregoal states enhance the reward positivity . Psychophysiology , 53 ( 5 ), 733–738. 10.1111/psyp.12611 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , & Gable, P. A. (2018a). Resting beta activation and trait motivation: Neurophysiological markers of motivated motor‐action preparation . International Journal of Psychophysiology , 127 , 46–51. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.03.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , & Gable, P. A. (2018b). The sweetness of successful goal pursuit: Approach‐motivated pregoal states enhance the reward positivity during goal pursuit . International Journal of Psychophysiology , 132 , 277–286. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.12.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , & Gable, P. A. (2019a). Negative affect varying in motivational intensity influences scope of memory . Cognition and Emotion , 33 ( 2 ), 332–345. 10.1080/02699931.2018.1451306 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , & Gable, P. A. (2019b). Intertrial variability in emotive reactions to approach‐motivated positive pictures predicts attentional narrowing: The role of individual differences . Biological Psychology , 142 , 19–28. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , Ryan, J. , Jordan, C. , & Hajcak, G. (2020). The reward positivity: Comparing visual and auditory feedback . Biological Psychology , 154 , 107907 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107907 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Threadgill, A. H. , Wilhelm, R. A. , Zagdsuren, B. , MacDonald, H. V. , Richardson, M. T. , & Gable, P. A. (2020). Frontal asymmetry: A novel biomarker for physical activity and sedentary behavior . Psychophysiology , e13633 10.1111/psyp.13633. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism . The Quarterly Review of Biology , 46 ( 1 ), 35–37. 10.1086/406755 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • U.S. Department of Justice (2017). Crime in the United States murder circumstances. Retrieved May 1st, 2019 from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime‐in‐the‐u.s/2017/crime‐in‐the‐u.s.‐2017/tables/expanded‐homicide‐data‐table‐10.xls
  • Ullsperger, M. , Danielmeier, C. , & Jocham, G. (2014). Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behaviors . Physiological Reviews , 94 ( 1 ), 35–79. 10.1152/physrev.00041.2012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van den Berg, I. , Franken, I. H. A. , & Muris, P. (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward: Association with electrophysiological responses to monetary gains and losses . Journal of Psychophysiology , 25 , 81–86. 10.1027/0269-8803/a000032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van den Berg, I. , Shaul, L. , Van der Veen, F. , & Franker, I. H. A. (2012). The role of monetary incentives in feedback processing: Why we should pay our participants . Neuroreport , 23 ( 6 ), 347–353. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328351db2f [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Verona, E. , Sadeh, N. , & Curtin, J. J. (2009). Stress‐induced asymmetric frontal brain activity and aggression risk . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 118 ( 1 ), 131–145. 10.1037/a0014376 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Watson, D. , & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS‐X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule – Expanded form . Ames, IA: The University of Iowa; 10.17077/48vt-m4t2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Weinberg, A. , Luhmann, C. C. , Bress, J. N. , & Hajcak, G. (2012). Better late than never? The effect of feedback delay on ERP indices of reward processing . Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience , 12 ( 4 ), 671–677. 10.3758/s13415-012-0104-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Weinberg, A. , Riesel, A. , & Proudfit, G. H. (2014). Show me the money: The impact of actual rewards and losses on the feedback negativity . Brain and Cognition , 87 , 134–139. 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wilhelm, R. A. , Miller, M. W. , & Gable, P. A. (2019). Neural and attentional correlates of intrinsic motivation resulting from social performance expectancy . Neuroscience , 416 , 137–146. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.07.039 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zaibert, L. (2006). Punishment and revenge . Law and Philosophy , 25 ( 1 ), 81–118. 10.1007/s10982-004-6727-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zinner, L. R. , Brodish, A. B. , Devine, P. G. , & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2008). Anger and asymmetrical frontal cortical activity: Evidence for an anger‐withdrawal relationship . Cognition and Emotion , 22 ( 6 ), 1081–1093. 10.1080/0269993070162296 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Revenge - Essay Examples And Topic Ideas For Free

Revenge entails retaliating against someone in response to perceived wrongs or injustices. Essays on revenge might explore its psychological underpinnings, moral implications, or its representation in literature, film, and history. Discussions could delve into famous revenge stories, the societal or personal consequences of seeking revenge, or the ethical debates surrounding retribution and justice. Analyzing different cultural or historical perspectives on revenge can provide a multifaceted exploration of human emotions, social norms, and justice systems. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Revenge you can find at PapersOwl Website. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Revenge is the Overarching Theme of the Play Hamlet

Revenge is a strange idea. It has been around since the dawn of time. An Eye for an eye, right? If someone hits you, you hit them back harder. In the play, Hamlet, William Shakespeare, Revenge is the overarching theme of the play. It shows what revenge can do to a person. Hamlet views revenge as a good deed: something that he must complete to avenge his dad. Revenge is binary, meaning it isn't only the act of revenge, there […]

Revenge and Foreshadowing in the Cask of Amontillado

"Edgar Allan Poe is a famous writer known for his thrilling short stories. One of his shorts, “The Cask of Amontillado” is most known for its intense and prevalent themes, including irony and foreshadowing. Foreshadowing in an element in the story is used to hint an event that will occur further along in the story. There are many types of Irony. One of these is dramatic irony, which refers to when a character thinks something is true, yet the audience […]

Edgar Allan Poe’s the Cask of Amontillado Essay

"Edgar Allan Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado expresses enigmatic themes of desire and human complexity. The protagonist desires revenge on an acquaintance through premeditated murder. Although conversely, that is only on the surface. Montresor's needs and desires are that of something beyond vengeance. It is known that our narrator and protagonist Montresor, seeks vengeance against Fortunato for the insults and ""the thousand injuries"" he felt had been done to him. Although, Montresor never clarifies how Fortunato degrades him nor backs […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Frankenstein Revenge

In her novel ?Frankenstein?, Mary Shelley shows that both Frankenstein and his creature are obsessed with revenge through their strong emotional language and obsessive actions, yet neither of them wins and gets revenge in the end. After Victor Frankenstein is threatened by the creature after destroying his nearly complete bride, Frankenstein states that he “?burned with rage to pursue the murderer of my peace and precipitate him into the ocean. I walked up and down my room hastily and perturbed, […]

Lies, Revenge and Betrayal in Othello

Lies are extremely common in our society today, with millions of people masking their true intentions. In Shakespeare's play titled Othello, one of the characters, Iago, is no different and in fact the same as those deceptive individuals in society. Behind his act as a trustworthy friend, Iago is a manipulative and deceptive character creating disorder and causing many mishaps to occur. Iago uses many acts of manipulation to undermine every single character's weaknesses to get exactly what he wants, […]

William Shakespeare Titus Andronicus Vs. Alice Walker the Color Purple

"I will be contrasting William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus and Alice Walker's The Color Purple. I chose to contrast these works because they are completely different; they stem from different time periods, feature characters of different genders and races, and portray trauma and religion in uniquely different ways. I was especially interested in observing how their characters handle trauma, how they cope with it, and examining the changes in the Christian community during these different historical periods. Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus […]

Examples of Revenge in the Scarlet Letter

Often times we hear "What's good for the goose is what's good for gander," in other words, if one person committed a crime they should both be punished the same. In The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, he explores the sin of Hester Prynne and Author Dimmesdale. He reveals these two characters to show that staying hidden and suffering in silence is worse than being publicly humiliated. Although Hester has committed a serious crime (adultery), she wears her scarlet letter […]

Revenge and Justice in Wuthering Heights

"There is a blurred line between revenge and justice. Is revenge, justice? Is revenge, justified? The difference, may be nothing but a shuffling of the same words to make oneself feel morally sound. If we can agree on the idea that revenge is a feeling or act of retribution, and also that justice is no more than a ‘just’ act of retaliation, then we can begin to question the fine structure of moral values and how that affects the definition […]

With Love, Violence and Vengeance

Through the twisted minds of human nature, love is shown through acts of violence and vengeance committed by mankind. William Shakespeare's, Othello and Homer’s The Odyssey violence and vengeance are portrayed through jealousy, prejudice, justice, and honor. Their roles are woven throughout these books to portray the idea that love is a violent concept. Violence and vengeance can be found in several ways. It can be expressed physically, verbally, and mentally. Othello shows how envy and jealousy can overpower and […]

Revenge: a Tale of Guilt and Consequence

Dark Shadows of Revenge Every day it appears, I see a dark shadow tailing me wherever I go. Looking to revenge and demolish me. There is this dimness gradually crawling to drag me down to hell, taking every one of my breaths and voiceless shouts. I have comes to find that revenge is a short fulfilling inclination. How could I feel remorse? People often do things they are not pleased with, yet I have accomplished something unspeakable, and I have […]

Internal Conflict in Hamlet: the Inner Struggle of Revenge

Hamlet: A Masterpiece of Revenge Hamlet is one of William Shakespeare's most famous plays and is often regarded as one of the best works in the English language. The concept of revenge is one of the play's primary themes. William Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet, which is about revenge. The main character, Hamlet, desires revenge for his father's death, but as the play progresses, he finds that revenge isn't as simple as it appears. The drama shows how revenge may […]

The Enigmatic Narration and Deceptive Layers of ‘The Cask of Amontillado’

“The Cask of Amontillado”, a short fiction story by Edgar Allan Poe, this particular story has a distinctive way of narrating without stating the obvious. Throughout the story readers are left to figure out what the author’s brilliant strategies in narrating the story and how the readers look at the characters are presented in the story. The Cask of Amontillado is a simple story of vengeance from the outside. However, the story takes an ironic way of expressing what’s the […]

The Play Hamlet: Revenge and Ophelia’s Madness

In the play, Shakespeare uses revenge as a main theme. To accomplish this theme, he had all three men seeking revenge at one time. Revenge is used in a way for all three men to express their feelings through anger and sadness. Anger can act in ways of corruption of plans, they may be changed or come out of hands when setting your mind in a negative mental state. Each son had a different way of seeking revenge. Their way […]

The Justification of Revenge and Unwillingness of Hamlet to Avenge his Father’s Death

Hamlet is a tragedy authored by William Shakespeare. The story tells of Hamlet, who is informed by the spirit of his father, that he has been murdered by Hamlet's uncle Claudius and his minions. Hamlet devises a plan to avenge his father against those who murdered him. His convoluted plot involves a theater play that is intended to prove and verify his uncle's guilt. He sets up the play to re-enact his father's murder with the actor resembling his father. […]

The Setting of “Wuthering Heights”: a Catalyst for Good and Evil Interactions

Introduction: The Yorkshire Setting Wuthering Heights, Emily Bonte's 1847 gothic novel, depicts the complex events induced by Heathcliff, a conceited man who loses his love, Catherine Earnshaw, and devotes the rest of his days to exacting revenge on her family. The novel setting is Yorkshire, a desolate region in remote Northern England. Wuthering Heights, a rough mansion, is a metaphor for the residents' irrational emotions and unkind actions. The dark environs of the mansion served as a focal point for […]

Greed in “The Pardoner’s Tale”: the Destructive Force of Wealth

As defined by Google, greed is an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Greed is one of the most toxic and divisive characteristics in history. In the past, greed has led to the downfall of entire nations and can influence people to turn on even their loved ones.  The Pardoner's Tale Theme: The Lure of Greed In "The Pardoner's Tale," three friends are ultimately driven to betray each other by an intense lust for wealth […]

Nemo me Impune Lacessit’: the Drive for Justice in “The Cask of Amontillado”

Montresor's Quest for Justice: The Insult and Revenge Edgar Allan Poe created a theme surrounding many types of justice in "The Cask of Amontillado." I concluded that the theme would be justice by how Montresor sought revenge, in how justice was served, and that justice is finally served in Montresor's eyes. First, Montrsor is determined to get revenge on Fortunato for his wrongdoings. Poe States, "A thousand injuries of Fortunato I had Borne as I best could, but when he […]

Revenge: a Dish Best Served Cold

The adage "Revenge is a dish best served cold" conveys the notion that vengeance is most satisfying when it's delayed, calculated, and unexpected, rather than executed in the heat of anger. This concept, deeply embedded in cultural narratives, literature, and cinematic stories, often portrays such revenge as the epitome of justice. But this view simplifies the complex psychological and ethical dimensions that revenge entails. At its essence, the idea of cold revenge speaks to a fundamental human craving for justice […]

Related topic

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Have a language expert improve your writing

Check your paper for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • College essay

How to Write a Great College Essay Introduction | Examples

Published on October 4, 2021 by Meredith Testa . Revised on August 14, 2023 by Kirsten Courault.

Admissions officers read thousands of essays each application season, and they may devote as little as five minutes to reviewing a student’s entire application. That means it’s critical to have a well-structured essay with a compelling introduction. As you write and revise your essay , look for opportunities to make your introduction more engaging.

There’s one golden rule for a great introduction: don’t give too much away . Your reader shouldn’t be able to guess the entire trajectory of the essay after reading the first sentence. A striking or unexpected opening captures the reader’s attention, raises questions, and makes them want to keep reading to the end .

Table of contents

Start with a surprise, start with a vivid, specific image, avoid clichés, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about college application essays.

A great introduction often has an element of mystery. Consider the following opening statement.

This opener is unexpected, even bizarre—what could this student be getting at? How can you be bad at breathing?

The student goes on to describe her experience with asthma and how it has affected her life. It’s not a strange topic, but the introduction is certainly intriguing. This sentence keeps the admissions officer reading, giving the student more of an opportunity to keep their attention and make her point.

In a sea of essays with standard openings such as “One life-changing experience for me was …” or “I overcame an obstacle when …,” this introduction stands out. The student could have used either of those more generic introductions, but neither would have been as successful.

This type of introduction is a true “hook”—it’s highly attention-grabbing, and the reader has to keep reading to understand.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

If your topic doesn’t lend itself to such a surprising opener, you can also start with a vivid, specific description.

Many essays focus on a particular experience, and describing one moment from that experience can draw the reader in. You could focus on small details of what you could see and feel, or drop the reader right into the middle of the story with dialogue or action.

Some students choose to write more broadly about themselves and use some sort of object or metaphor as the focus. If that’s the type of essay you’d like to write, you can describe that object in vivid detail, encouraging the reader to imagine it.

Cliché essay introductions express ideas that are stereotypical or generally thought of as conventional wisdom. Ideas like “My family made me who I am today” or “I accomplished my goals through hard work and determination” may genuinely reflect your life experience, but they aren’t unique or particularly insightful.

Unoriginal essay introductions are easily forgotten and don’t demonstrate a high level of creative thinking. A college essay is intended to give insight into the personality and background of an applicant, so a standard, one-size-fits-all introduction may lead admissions officers to think they are dealing with a standard, unremarkable applicant.

Quotes can often fall into the category of cliché essay openers. There are some circumstances in which using a quote might make sense—for example, you could quote an important piece of advice or insight from someone important in your life. But for most essays, quotes aren’t necessary, and they may make your essay seem uninspired.

If you want to know more about academic writing , effective communication , or parts of speech , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Academic writing

  • Writing process
  • Transition words
  • Passive voice
  • Paraphrasing

 Communication

  • How to end an email
  • Ms, mrs, miss
  • How to start an email
  • I hope this email finds you well
  • Hope you are doing well

 Parts of speech

  • Personal pronouns
  • Conjunctions

The introduction of your college essay is the first thing admissions officers will read and therefore your most important opportunity to stand out. An excellent introduction will keep admissions officers reading, allowing you to tell them what you want them to know.

The key to a strong college essay introduction is not to give too much away. Try to start with a surprising statement or image that raises questions and compels the reader to find out more.

Cliché openers in a college essay introduction are usually general and applicable to many students and situations. Most successful introductions are specific: they only work for the unique essay that follows.

In most cases, quoting other people isn’t a good way to start your college essay . Admissions officers want to hear your thoughts about yourself, and quotes often don’t achieve that. Unless a quote truly adds something important to your essay that it otherwise wouldn’t have, you probably shouldn’t include it.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Testa, M. (2023, August 14). How to Write a Great College Essay Introduction | Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/college-essay/introduction-college-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Meredith Testa

Meredith Testa

Other students also liked, college essay format & structure | example outlines, how to end a college admissions essay | 4 winning strategies, what do colleges look for in an essay | examples & tips.

(92) 336 3216666

[email protected]

Read below our study guide on Of Revenge by Francis Bacon summary and analysis.

Of Revenge by Francis Bacon Summary

Of Revenge by Francis Bacon is a short but meaningful essay that carries the author personal views about the great upsurge of nowadays society that is “revenge”. Bacon starts the essay by calling revenge as animalistic behavior by using the words “wild justice” for it. By such contrast, he describes the whole picture of the animal and human life. The more one’s nature turns toward for taking revenge, the more he is taking the law into his hands. If one commits a crime or does some harm to anybody, he/she is offending and violating the law but when the victim counterattacks, it make the law of no use. The law is useless when a person tries to take revenge himself. Undoubtedly by taking revenge, the wrongdoer and the counter-attacker are equal and at the same level. There is no difference between both, apparently. Bacon highlights the point that revenge is totally against the law. By ignoring or forgiving the wrong done to one by other makes a person superior to other as it is the quality of kings and prince to forgive others. By forbearing others, one makes a respectable place in the society.

By quoting Salomon, a wisest Jewish philosopher, Bacon designates the quality of wise men that a secret of their glory is they always ignore the wrongs from others. To him, wise men don’t think about past. For what is done, is gone that cannot be changed. But the wise men focus on the present and they learn through their previous experiences and apply them in the present. Why should one care about the past as they have much to do about present and future? Forgive, forget, and move on.

Bacon interestingly illustrates that why will a person do wrong to someone? What could be possible reasons behind? Is he/she doing wrong for the sake of wrong? If so, then why? The answer is given by bacon himself. One doesn’t do wrong with others for the sake of wrongs but to gain and acquire himself certain profit ( that could me of money or something else), or a particular pleasure (just like a sadist enjoys sufferings of others), or it might be to avail some respect and honor, or could be anything like that. Bacon, then, argues that why should I become mad at a person who loves himself more than me? This is then not a well-to-do workout to do. And if a person does wrong because it is his nature then these people are like “thorn” and “briar” (bushes) which can only puncture and cut. So, let them do, don’t complain.

Bacon, moreover, points out that if one makes himself engross in revenge that has no legal remedy, “the most tolerable sort of revenge”, then the one looking to avenge should make sure that there is no rule or law to rebuke him. Bacon suggested that the person taking revenge should make his enemies informed as it might make the opposition party repent. It is more delightful to make one repent than to hurt. But if you take revenge silently by not provoking them, you will be a coward which is like an arrow that could hit anyone in the dark.

Bacon extends his argument about the wrongs that cannot be pardoned. These wrongs usually come from our beloved friend, as one can forgive the enemy form whom we can expect such wrongs but these sort of friend are like snakes who stabs at your back and doesn’t give you a moment to understand what they have done to you. The author quoted the Cosmos, the Duke of Florence that we have read that we are commanded to forgive our enemies, but we have never read that we are commanded to forgive our friends. But still, bacon says, we should not be so much inclined toward avenging them. As we are satisfied to take all good deeds from God but why are we not happy to take evil from him, too? So, we should forgive even our friends and consider them an evil from the God.

A person who is always in sickness to take revenge and searching for a good moment to take will keep his wound evergreen and will never let them cure. In such condition, the only loss is to the sufferer which would otherwise heal and move on and focusing more on his present and future than to remain buried in his past.

Bacon, lastly, ends the essay by arguing that public revenge, on the most past for bad leader or rules is fortunate. He gives examples of the public death of Caesar, Partinax (a Roman emperor), and Henry the Third of France. In public act of revenge, there is a huge lesson for the public and rest of people as it set an example for other while the private revenge, on the other hand, makes a person, who nourishes evil desires for others, to live a life of witches. Such life is full of rascal so they end, unfortunately.

Of Revenge by Francis Bacon Literary Analysis

In the essay, of Revenge, Bacon presents the extremely reasonable argument contrary to the private revenge and recognizes “public revenge on the most part is fortunate”. He calls revenge a “wild justice”. Such contrast is made by him to show the animalistic nature of revenge. It is characteristic of an animal to avenge not of humans as they are entitled to forgive and show compassion to fellow beings. Bacon’s essays are characterized as brief but highly comprehensible. Just as by a single statement of wild justice, he presents the whole picture of human and animal life.

Moreover, Bacon argues that the first wrong is overseen by law, but avenging it is out of the law. To avenge is a distortion of the law.

This essay appeals to one’s wisdom of ethical supremacy when the author points out that the wise man is the one who ignores the wrongs of other done to him as he has much more to do in present and future rather than considering his past matters. As wrongs in the past cannot be changed because they are irrevocable, one should move on.

Bacon explains a logical argument for why should one look for to harm others? As one doesn’t go wrong for the wrong sake. To him, one might get some profit by harming others, or some pleasure like a sadist or to achieve some honor. If these could be the reasons to do wrong with others then one should not avenge them as you cannot hate someone because they love themselves more than you. Further, if someone is doing wrong because of their ill-nature then they are just like “thorns and briars that can only cut and scratch”. Forgive them, and move on.

By taking revenge, Bacon argues, one takes the law into his hands. Law becomes useless if one tries to take revenge. But such type of revenge is bearable which has no lawful remedy. One should make sure, Bacon warns, that there is then no law to punish. Along with this, one should make the opposition informed before avenging them. This might make them sorry which is more worth than harming them.

We can forgive the wrongs done by enemies because we expect them to do so, but what about the wrongs that are done to us by our beloved friend, are such wrongs forgivable? Bacon seems to change his opinion against taking revenge by quoting Cosmus, the Duke of Florence, that we are commanded to forgive enemies but we are never commanded to forgive friends. But immediately after this he quotes Job and stands upon his argument that ‘we are satisfied and happy to take all goods from God than why we are not happy to take all evil’? Such friends should be considered as evil from God and shouldn’t be avenged.

Bacon is totally against private revenge but suggests that public act of revenge are for the most part fortunate as it set an example for all. On the other hand, private revenge is unfortunate. The person who takes revenge lives a life of witches and his wound never heals.

Of Revenge Main Themes

Following are the main theme of the essay Of Revenge.

Revenge: A Wild Justice:

“Revenge is a kind of wild justice”, Bacon argues. Wild justice symbolizes animalistic behavior. Animals don’t have any rules and regulation nor do they have any law to maintain order in their society. So they are inclined towards taking revenge. While, on the other hand, human society has a law to regulate human behavior. They shouldn’t be inclined towards avenging others like animals. By doing so they are taking the law into hands and in such cases the law is useless.

Private Revenge is Useless:

Private revenge is unfortunate and useless as by avenging others one takes the law into his hands. One should consult law to take revenge. The revenge for that wrongs is tolerable and fortunate which has no lawful remedy. If there is law then it’s unfortunate. The one who is always in search of the moment to take revenge is the most unfortunate person as his wound are evergreen and lives a life of witches.

Forgive, Forget, and Move on:

Bacon’s argument about revenge highly appeals to one moral and ethical sense of supremacy. According to him, the wise man is the one who forgives others and concentrates on his present and future than on past. Since the wrongs done in past is gone and irrevocable so, it is useless to live in past. Just forgive, forget, and move on.

Public Revenge is Fortunate:

Bacon argues that public act of revenge on the most part are fortunate as they set examples for others. Bad leaders should be punished publically and in the worst way so that other learns a lesson from it and avoid doing such acts.

More From Francis Bacon

  • Of Adversity
  • Of Ambition
  • Of Discourse
  • Of Followers and Friends
  • Of Friendship
  • Of Great Place
  • Of Marriage and Single Life
  • Of Nobility
  • Of Parents and Children
  • Of Simulation and Dissimulation
  • Of Superstition
  • Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature
  • How It Works
  • United States
  • View all categories

The Theme of Revenge in Hamlet - Critical Essay

Introduction.

Revenge is an odd idea. It's been around since the beginning of time. It's called an Eye for an Eye. You hit back harder if someone hits you. The play's overarching theme is revenge. It shows the power of revenge to bring about change. Hamlet sees revenge as a good act of vengeance. He must do it to get his father's forgiveness. It is not just the act of revenge. There are many layers to this kind of revenge. There are several pivotal turning points in the play that make revenge clear and show what it can do to people, particularly Hamlet. Hamlet believes that revenge is necessary in order to protect honor. Therefore, Hamlet's decision to take revenge was justified. Hamlet seeks revenge because of his existentialism. If we look at his outlook on life, we can see that he doesn't believe regular society has the right to determine morality or its role in making morality decisions. Hamlets existentialism makes it possible for his actions to be amplified, elevated, and finally, he justifies his actions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Act 1, scene 1. Hamlet speaks to his father in ghost form and learns that his father was killed by Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle and father’s brother. Revenge his unnatural and foul murder. (1.5, 25,) This is Hamlet's first existential crisis. Hamlet is given an order from his father to kill his killer. Hamlet was determined to exact revenge for the horrible murder. Hamlet believes that he'll feel relieved, relieved and internally motivated by avenging the father. This quote shows that Hamlet doesn't fear killing anyone and is happy. This quote shows that revenge is evident throughout the play and will be a significant factor in what the characters want. It's not that easy. Hamlets' morals are harmed by murder, and so he goes to hell. So I am vengeful. This would be scan. That would be scanned. Hamlet's quest for revenge should not be questioned. Hamlet wants Claudius to be punished for his actions towards Hamlet's father.

Claudius doesn't want him to have the pleasure of going to heaven or having a happy afterlife, since he was killed praying. Hamlet demands that he pay. Hamlet does not, throughout the play, act on the father's murder. Act 2, scene two, Hamlet says that he hasn’t done anything. That I, the dear son murdered, was provoked to my revenge by heaven or hell. Must, like an alcoholic, unpack my heart and speak. And then fall a-cursing as a very drab. A scullion! Fie upon 't, foh! (2.2, 545) Hamlet can only act through his emotions. In his soliloquy, Hamlet pours forth his heart at the end. He admits to his inadequacies in the task his father asked him to perform. Hamlet views himself as an ass and is conflicted. O cursed spite! Let's get together, Nay! (1.5,190). Murder is still against Hamlet’s morals but this is contrary to what Hamlet is asked his father. It is also important to understand the reasons for the controversy. His father was viewed by him as a strong, fair and noble King. My mother was so loving (1.2, 140), which is why Hamlet was so desperate for revenge.

Hamlet realizes that every action in one's life is meaningless as he fights against morality. Alexander [the Great] was laid to rest, Alexander returns to dust, and the dust is earth. Of earth we make loam (5.1,190). Even the King of Macedonia and Conqueror are dead. He is now dirt, which is useless unless you stop up a hole. He accepts the fact that there is neither heaven nor hell or an afterlife. If your dead, your dead. At this point, Hamlet will abandon his morals and continue his plot to kill King. Hamlet develops depression over the course the play as a consequence of his inadequacy.

The most important silique in Hamlet can tell a lot about his character: To be or not to be. This is the question: Is it nobler to suffer the arrows and slings of fortune? Or to arm yourself against the sea of troubles? And to oppose them? To die, to go to sleep, and to have a rest to end the night (3.1, 57-63) Hamlet was forced to take revenge for Hamlet's duty. He considers how simple it would be to end his troubles and kill himself. Hamlet plays with the idea of suicide as a way to not get revenge, even though it is a sin. Hamlet's motivations to inflict injury on another person for wrong done to them is because Hamlet feels that nobody is on his side. His mother betrayed him and told Hamlet, "Good Hamlet", that she had cast off her nighted color. And that your eye should look like one on Denmark. All life must end, (1.2, 70). Hamlet's mother tells him that death is inevitable. She has no sympathy for Hamlet, who just lost her father and was even more hurt when he was killed. The ghost of King Hamlet says "That incestuous and that adulterate beast" (1.5.49), implying that she has never loved Hamlet, cheated on him while he was alive and used him to gain power and wealth. Gertrude makes Hamlet feel guilty for grieving the death of his father. (1.2, 75), asking why this is so important or special to you. He feels his mother isn't interested in him or his deceased father.

Claudius and Gertrude feel Hamlet are attacking him. Claudius then tells Hamlet to do obsequious sadness. However, to persist In stubborn condolement is a path Of impious stubbornness. It is unmanly grief. Claudius tells Hamlet to face the fact that everyone dies and not be a coward. Claudius wants Hamlet now to see himself as his father figure, and King. Hamlet's revenge on Claudius is justifiable for many reasons. One reason being that he asked God for forgiveness and asked - May one be pardoned but retain the offense? (3.3, 55). No, one can't be pardoned. If one asks for forgiveness but isn't able to accept any responsibility, they don't deserve it. Claudius deserves his fate.

Rosencrantz, Queen and Guildenstern are sent by the King and Queen to observe Hamlet and find out why he is acting crazy. Hamlet hadn’t seen Guildenstern and Rosencrantz in a while, but they were old friends. Hamlet instantly realizes why they came. You, my lord. There is no other occasion. (2.2, 259) Hamlet is aware that they lie and fears that they might be betraying him and working for King and Queen. The King and Queen asked Rosencrantz to bring Hamlet to England after Polonius' death. They also sent a letter informing Hamlet that he would be killed. Rosencrantz, Guildenstern claim they don't work for the King but in fact they do. Hamlet is irritated by his friends and alters the letter to send Rosencrantz to his death. This shows how Hamlet's views on other people are diminished after he has rejected his morals. Their deaths are a reminder of the negative effects that revenge can have on people. They were in a position between Hamlet, their friend, and the King and Queen who had complete power at the time and could execute anyone at any time.

Shakespeare's use the two side characters played an important role in Hamlet's mind changing over the course the play. Unlike Hamlet who delayed executing his revenge, Laertes does exactly the opposite. That both the worlds I give up to negligence. Let it come, but I will be most thoroughly vengeful for my father. (4.5, 108) Laertes was in France at the time his father died. He immediately returned to Denmark. Like Hamlet, Laertes was grieving for his sister and father, but Laertes promises, "But my revenge will come." (4.7, 29). He promises revenge because, unlike Hamlet, Laertes does not have the same morals he must overcome to get vengeance. Because he was in a relationship with Ophilia, Laertes' sister, he already had bad blood. Laertes father Polonius, a noble father, and his sister, Stood Challenger on Mount of all the ages. He praised their perfections and now Laertes must feel recompensed. The only way to do this is through revenge.

These characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are used by William Shakespeare as fascinating characters in his play. Hamlet attempts to put his suffering down on Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and their betrayal. Rosencrantz, Guildenstern are unable to trust Hamlet because he was once crossed by his mother and uncle. Hamlet's existentialism and lack of morality led him to act in the way he did. The King and Queen would have executed them if they had told Hamlet that they were spying on him. Hamlet, Revenge is a play that focuses on revenge as a whole.

There are many things that can be learned from this theme, such as why revenge is necessary and what its consequences are. The only thing that could be achieved in Shakespeare's Hamlet was revenge. It is possible to justify it, but the play concludes that revenge is bad. It's not just a play theme or an action the characters take throughout the play. Revenge plays a larger role in Shakespeare's writing style and in one's struggle to follow their morals. Shakespeare's creative genius and knowledge enabled his plays to display complex character archetypes.

Hamlet, for example, had many things going on in his personal life. His girlfriend left him, his father was killed by his uncle, and Hamlet's mother remarried. This allows us to understand why Hamlet waited so long for his revenge. It is not just that Hamlet wanted Claudius dead because he was wrong. While this is true in a certain sense, it isn't the whole theme of Hamlet.

Cite this page

The Theme of Revenge in Hamlet - Critical Essay. (2022, Oct 10). Retrieved from https://midtermguru.com/essays/the-theme-of-revenge-in-hamlet-critical-essay

so we do not vouch for their quality

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the midtermguru.com website, please click below to request its removal:

  • Literature Essay Sample: Effect of Imagination on Physical Spaces in Peter Pan
  • Analysis of William Shakespeares Tragedy Othello - Paper Example
  • Critical Analysis of Theories: A Doll's House - Literature Essay Sample
  • Essay on Janies Acquisition of Language in the Novel Their Eyes Were Watching God
  • What This Cruel War Was Over by Chandra Manning - Literary Analysis Essay
  • Critical Essay on Shakespeare's MacBeth
  • Book Analysis Essay on Citizen by Claudia Rankine

Liked this essay sample but need an original one?

Hire a professional with VAST experience!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism

Submit your request

Sorry, but it's not possible to copy the text due to security reasons.

Would you like to get this essay by email?

Interested in this essay?

Get it now!

Unfortunately, you can’t copy samples. Solve your problem differently! Provide your email for sample delivery

By clicking “I want to recieve an essay” you agree to be contacted via email

Sample is in your inbox

Avoid editing or writing from scratch! Order original essay online with 25% off. Delivery in 6+ hours!

Home / Essay Samples / Entertainment / Television / Revenge

The Concepts of Revenge Vs Justice

Essay details

Law, Crime & Punishment , Entertainment

Judiciary , Television

Justice , Revenge

  • Words: 539 (1 page)

The Concepts Of Revenge Vs Justice

Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.

Table of Contents

Introduction, the argument over revenge, the difference of justice and revenge, the unhealthy nature of revenge.

Get quality help now

introduction revenge essay

Verified writer

Proficient in: Judiciary , Television

introduction revenge essay

+ 75 relevant experts are online

More Revenge Related Essays

Revenge, often depicted as a dish best served cold, has a longstanding place in human narratives and emotions. It's a concept that captivates the imagination and taps into our innate desire for justice and retribution. However, ...

"Othello" is a play about revenge. The revenge that takes part in the play is so deep and continues throughout the play. The revenge in the play "Othello" is all tied in with jealousy. The only thing Othello wanted was to live a ...

When someone does harm to you or a loved one, the only thing that crosses your mind is revenge! The horrible feeling on the inside builds up a lot of anger, and it just does not let you live! It is very challenging to fight ...

Revenge in romantic relationships typically has negative consequences and is considered immoral, but it can also be considered beneficial. Revenge can cause unexpected and unintentional consequences that can be destructive in a ...

India is a democratic country with a vast population and a wide variety of culture. Our pledge has taught us from when we can read that we should respect our country and consider all as our brothers and sisters, but how many of ...

In Letter From Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. speaks out against injustice, establishing that for justice to prevail, one must oppose injustice at every turn; even if that means landing in jail. King famously proclaims ...

The famous novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said "Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but conscience of the whole humanity." Justice is one of the most dominant themes in the book of Montana 1948 by Larry ...

My literature review is on the role of law and justice in Le Morte d'Arthur. The general consensus in the articles I read appear to be that the law and how it is enforced is a hinderance to true justice and even brings about ...

While Last Dance isn't strictly a gender-switched re-telling of Dead Man Walking, there are a number of obvious similarities. In this film, the death row inmate is Cindy Liggett (Sharon Stone), a woman tried and convicted for ...

apologies

This feature is still in progress, but don't worry – you can place an order for an essay with our expert writers

We use cookies to offer you the best experience. By continuing, we’ll assume you agree with our Cookies policy .

Choose your writer among 300 professionals!

You cannot copy content from our website. If you need this sample, insert an email and we'll deliver it to you.

Please, provide real email address.

This email is exists.

IMP.CENTER

Revenge Essay | Essay on Taking Revenge on Others, Introduction, Definition and Importance of Revenge

introduction revenge essay

Revenge Essay: The concept of revenge, its origin, manifestation, and negative impact on people and nations. Revenge is the hostile outcome of human emotion that drives someone to hurt or do harm to others in retaliation for a wrong act done to him. The urge for revenge mainly originates from anger, hatred, envy, and grief. People seek revenge when they feel they have been attacked and suffered loss or injury in an unjustified manner by someone individually or collectively. As a result, they feel powerless, humiliated, or ashamed.

Revenge is an extremely unhealthy expression of emotions that takes a psychological and physical toll on the sufferer. It may evoke initial pleasure and satisfaction from the sufferings of the offender, but in the long run, those who take revenge end up feeling even worse and distressed. Psychological studies have found that instead of diminishing hostility, revenge prolongs the bitterness of the original offense. Revenge refers to the action that brings justice for wrongdoing done to someone. But it costs suffering or pain to the person affected by revenge.

You can also find more  Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long Essay on Revenge 700 Words in English

Historical and Social Context

Revenge has been a part of our history and mythology from ancient times. In a conflict to gain power and positions, concerned parties indulged in acts of revenge. Revenge can lead people to do horrible things, whether it is a dispute between family and friends or a large scale of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of revenge between two parties involving hilarious acts that usually kill a lot of innocent people. Revenge is something that can be planned and executed in different ways. The feelings of hatred and ego force people to do something wrong to get satisfaction for an injury or insult received. In the past, revenge might have been considered justified to settle scores with enemies. But, the present human society, with its highly developed intelligence and capabilities, does not encourage such crude practices.

Psychology behind revenge

The motive behind taking revenge is to make the enemy repent for his actions by putting him in distress and suffering. Someone takes revenge to do the maximum possible damage to his enemy, while he is struggling with his loss. People can be provoked to take revenge on others under various circumstances. Although many aspects of revenge support the concept of justice, revenge has a more damaging focus rather than a restorative one. When someone has been treated wrongly, the thought of getting revenge seems so appealing to him, but in reality, it can cause too much damage. Some people take hostile steps being instigated by religious or political sentiments. They don’t care what the consequences can be as long as they get the satisfaction of harming those who they consider enemies. They get psychological relief or pleasure by seeing the suffering of others.

Damage to humanity

People consider they have the right to take revenge as a form of private justice for wrongs done to them. Revenge is not a worthy solution because it is a form of punishing someone rather than giving justice or making something equal. To bring equality, you only end up losing lives, property, and relationships. Nothing is accomplished by revenge, rather it allows the chain of pain and suffering that continue to never end.

Taking revenge on someone also causes them to retaliate and take revenge on you. This process keeps going as a cycle until it becomes a devastating outcome involving families, societies, or even nations. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi pointed out that nothing can be gained from revenge and he stated that “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. This quote represents the opinion that when everyone is involved in seeking revenge, there will be an end to humanity, and the survival of society will be at stake.

Conclusion on Revenge Essay

Revenge is a part of human nature that all people can relate to. So writers often use it in literature as a central theme. Revenge can easily be an attractive theme for a novel or movie because it reflects on the dark side of human character. People’s opinions on revenge may vary, some may think it is justified and some don’t. People, who think of taking revenge, are likely to feel guilty and regretful afterward. One might feel hurt or betrayed for time being but eventually, he may be able to put those feelings behind and avoid the possibility of further suffering. By taking revenge, you also instigate the person taking revenge on your wrongdoing and the cycle continues. Getting caught in a loop will only cause you further pain and agony. One can find a much better way of channeling the energy to move forward in a positive direction. Try to ignore the people who bring you down in the past, as they are not worth your time and energy.

Short Essay on Revenge

Revenge is the act of causing damage to another person or community by some individual or group because they believe they are being hurt unjustly by the other. The mentality is doing the same wrong things that have been done upon you. The feelings that ignite the desire for revenge are grief, humiliation, anger, and hatred. Some people take things too personally that hurt their ego so they want to harm the person or community who contradicts them. This is mostly based on religious and political sentiments while claiming superiority in the game of power and position. But people often forget that things can be turned the other way round and all have to pay the price for doing harm and causing pain to others.

Revenge is not a justice

Revenge is an idea we are acquainted with through history, mythology, and other literary works. It is also a common theme for novels and movies to make them more interesting to readers and audiences. In many cases, the act of revenge is glorified or justified by showing the superiority of an individual or community over others. It portrays revenge as a way of giving justice in someone’s terms, using power and authority. It is not primarily about justice but only affirming someone’s right to retaliate against some wrong done to them, which is not right. The idea of revenge when spread among a large part of a community, it leads to terrorist acts causing harm to a huge number of people with loss of innocent lives.

An act of revenge may give an initial psychological relief by temporarily suppressing the grief and anger but sows the seed of bitter feelings in the society which stays much longer. The best way to get back on someone who hurt you is to improve yourself, develop capabilities and achieve something worthy. Instead of being vindictive or aggressive, you may consider the other person as an unimportant part of his life journey who can be ignored. This is also a form of revenge causing no harm to anyone but developing a sense of forgiveness and positivity.

FAQ’s on Revenge Essay

Question 1. What is revenge?

Answer: Revenge is the action of hurting or harming someone in retaliation to a grievance or suffering caused by them.

Question 2. What is an example of revenge by terrorism?

Answer: The destruction of the twin towers in the USA was a terrorist act of revenge done by a group.

Question 3. Does revenge generate any positive outcome?

Answer: Revenge doesn’t lead to any positive solution but rather traps people in the loop of bitter feelings that result in more retaliation and suffering.

What is Ring Topology? Advantages and Disadvantages of Ring Topology

Advantages and Disadvantages of Rain | Top 10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rain

Father’s Day Essay | Essay on Fathers Day for Students and Children in English

My Father Essay | Essay On My Father My Role Model for Students and Children

Conversation Between Teacher and Student in English | Simple Conversations Between…

English Conversation Between Doctor and Patient in Four Simple Scenarios

Conversation Between Two Friends After a Long Time, About Pollution and Study

Advantages and Disadvantages Essay Topics for Students, IELTS & Learners

Fixed Exchange Rate Advantages And Disadvantages | What are the Major Advantages And…

Positive Words that Start With F | List of 48 Positive Words Starting With F Pictures…

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Entrepreneurship | What is Entrepreneurship?, Pros…

Comments are closed.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

China’s Electric Vehicles Are Going to Hit Detroit Like a Wrecking Ball

A parking lot full of cars outside Ford’s Michigan assembly plant. Many thick clouds are above.

By Robinson Meyer

Mr. Meyer is a contributing Opinion writer and the founding executive editor of Heatmap , a media company focused on climate change.

It happened very quickly, so fast that you might not have noticed it. Over the past few months, America’s Big Three automakers — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the oddly named company that owns Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep — landed in big trouble.

I realize this may sound silly. Ford, General Motors and Stellantis made billions in profit last year, even after a long strike by autoworkers, and all three companies are forecasting a big 2024. But recently, the Big Three found themselves outmaneuvered and missing their goals for electric vehicle sales at the same time that a crop of new affordable, electrified foreign cars appeared, ready to flood the global market.

About a decade ago, America bailed out the Big Three and swore it wouldn’t do that again. But the federal government is going to have to help the Big Three and the rest of the U.S. car market again very soon. And it has to do it in the right way — now — to avoid the next auto bailout.

The biggest threat to the Big Three comes from a new crop of Chinese automakers, especially BYD, which specialize in producing plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. BYD’s growth is astounding: It sold three million electrified vehicles last year , more than any other company, and it now has enough production capacity in China to manufacture four million cars a year. But that isn’t enough: It’s building factories in Brazil, Thailand, Hungary and Uzbekistan, to produce even more cars, and it may soon add Indonesia and Mexico to that list. A deluge of electric vehicles is coming.

BYD’s cars deliver great value at prices that beat anything coming out of the West. This month BYD unveiled a plug-in hybrid that gets decent all-electric range and will retail for just over $11,000. How can it do that? Like other Chinese manufacturers, BYD benefits from its home country’s lower labor costs, but this explains only some of its success. The fact is that BYD and other Chinese automakers like Geely, which owns Volvo Cars and Polestar brands, are very good at making cars. They have leveraged China’s dominance of the battery industry and automated production lines to create a juggernaut.

The Chinese automakers, especially BYD, represent something new in the world. They signal that China’s decades-long accretion of economic complexity is almost complete: Whereas the country once made toys and clothes and then made electronics and batteries, now it makes cars and airplanes . What’s more, BYD and other Chinese automakers are becoming virtually global car companies, capable of manufacturing electric cars that can compete directly with gas-burning cars on cost.

That is, on the surface, a good thing. Electric cars need to get cheaper and more abundant if we are to have any hope of meeting our global climate goals. But it poses some immediate and thorny problems for American policymakers. After BYD announced its $11,000 plug-in hybrid, it posted on the Chinese social media platform Weibo that “the price will make petrol car assemblers tremble.” The problem is many of those gasoline-car makers are American.

Ford and GM plotted an ambitious E.V. transition three years ago, but it didn’t take long for them to stumble. Last year Ford lost more than $64,000 on every E.V. that it sold. Since October, it has delayed the opening of one of its new E.V. battery plants, and GM has fumbled the start of its new Ultium battery platform, which is meant to be the foundation for all of its future electric vehicles. Ford and GM have notched some wins here (the Mustang Mach-E and Chevrolet Bolt are modest hits), but they aren’t competing at the level of Tesla and Hyundai — companies that operate factories in less union-friendly states in the Sun Belt.

Jim Farley, Ford’s chief executive, recently disclosed that the company had a secret development team building a cheap, affordable electric car to compete with Tesla and BYD. But producing electric vehicles profitably is an organizational skill, and like any skill, it takes time, effort and money to develop. Even if Ford and GM now bust out innovative new designs, they will lag their competition in executing them well.

The other looming problem for Ford and General Motors is that their balance sheets, while superficially robust, conceal a structural vulnerability. While the two companies have done generally well in recent years, their billions in profits have overwhelmingly flowed from selling a relatively small number of vehicles to a small group of people. Specifically, Ford’s and GM’s earnings rest primarily on selling pickup trucks, S.U.V.s and crossovers to affluent North Americans.

In other words, if Americans’ appetite for trucks and S.U.V.s falters, then Ford and GM will be in real trouble. That creates a strategic quandary for them. In the coming years, these companies must cross a bridge from one business model to another: They must use their robust truck and S.U.V. earnings to subsidize their growing electric vehicle business and learn how to make E.V.s profitably. If they can make it across this bridge quickly, they will survive. But if their S.U.V. profits crumble before their E.V. business is ready, they will fall into the chasm and perish.

That’s why the flood of cheap Chinese electric vehicles poses such a big problem: It could wash away Ford and GM’s bridge before they have finished building it. Even a wave of competitive electric cars from the Sun Belt automakers — like Kia’s EV9, a three-row S.U.V. — could eat away at their S.U.V. profits before they’re ready.

Perhaps the Big Three deserve destruction; after all, they hooked us on S.U.V.s in the first place and then fell behind in the E.V. race. But letting them die is not a tenable political option for President Biden. One goal of his administration is to show not only that decarbonization can work for the American economy but also that it can revive moribund fossil-fuel-dependent communities in the Rust Belt. Mr. Biden has also fought for and won the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, which just cemented a generous new contract with the Big Three and now needs them to thrive.

He has reason, in other words, to help the Big Three even before you get to the harsh electoral realities: The legacy auto industry employs more people in Michigan than in any other state, and Mr. Biden’s path to re-election all but requires him to win Michigan in November. (Recall that Donald Trump won Michigan by just under 11,000 votes in 2016.) Mr. Biden cannot allow the possibility of another China shock to hit the Midwest’s auto economy. So what should he do?

The good news is that Congress has already done some of the work for him. You may have heard about the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous subsidies for domestic electric car production. Can it help here? It can, and it will, but the act alone is not nearly big enough to insulate these companies from the threat posed by Chinese E.V.s. Geely is preparing to sell the small, all-electric Volvo EX30 S.U.V. in the United States for $35,000. That price — which seemingly includes the cost of a 25 percent tariff, first imposed by the Trump administration — rivals what American automakers are capable of doing today, even with the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies.

Subsidies most likely won’t be enough; Mr. Biden will need to impose trade restrictions. But here’s where it gets messy. The case for protecting the American auto market from Chinese E.V.s is obvious and politically essential but also highly troublesome. In the short term, American automakers — even the homegrown electric-only carmakers like Tesla and Rivian — must be shielded from a wave of cheap cars. But in the long term, Mr. Biden must be careful not to cordon off the American car market from the rest of the world, turning the United States into an automotive backwater of bloated, expensive, gas-guzzling vehicles. The Chinese carmakers are the first real competition that the global car industry has faced in decades, and American companies must be exposed to some of that threat, for their own good. That means they must feel the chill of death on their necks and be forced to rise and face this challenge.

This could be done in a number of ways. One is by suggesting to American companies that any import restrictions imposed on Chinese cars in the next few years won’t necessarily be permanent. That might encourage American companies to learn everything they can from their new Chinese competition, getting over their hubris and recognizing that Chinese companies now understand aspects of E.V. manufacturing better than their American counterparts. That means that Republican lawmakers, in particular, must recognize that climate-friendly technologies are the future of global industry. Mr. Trump is threatening that, if elected, he would gut the Inflation Reduction Act, even though it’s full of policies meant to help America compete with Chinese E.V.s. There would be no faster way to destroy the U.S. car industry as a global force.

What the United States is trying to do is really hard. We want to preserve the economic geography and institutions of our old fossil-fuel-powered economy while retooling it to work in a new zero-carbon world. There’s no small amount of irony in the fact that all those involved here — Democrats, Republicans, major automakers — resent China for achieving what was once a goal of, well, hippies and environmentalists: making electric cars popular and cheap. But if they’ve done it, we can do it, too. It will take grit and good-faith effort. We should assume that Ford and General Motors will be competing with BYD and Geely for decades to come, and we should relish that fight.

Robinson Meyer is a contributing Opinion writer and the founding executive editor of Heatmap , a media company focused on climate change.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

IMAGES

  1. Revenge Essay When I was younger I had the desire to win, I couldn't

    introduction revenge essay

  2. An Essay Exploring the Concepts of Revenge as Seen in Clint Eastwood's

    introduction revenge essay

  3. 010 Revenge Essay Example Essays What Is Thesis For An Of Statement

    introduction revenge essay

  4. Revenge Essay

    introduction revenge essay

  5. The Tempest The Theme of Revenge (600 Words)

    introduction revenge essay

  6. ≫ "A Trace of Revenge" Analysis Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com

    introduction revenge essay

VIDEO

  1. The Ultimate Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge Retrospective!

  2. WRITING AN ESSAY

  3. Finishing a essay last minute: #shortsvideo #funny

  4. Argumentative essay writing

  5. Top 5 Movies That Lived Up To The HYPE

  6. GUIDE TO WRITING AN ESSAY📝

COMMENTS

  1. Revenge Essay

    Revenge Essay: The concept of revenge, its origin, manifestation, and negative impact on people and nations. Revenge is the hostile outcome of human emotion that drives someone to hurt or do harm to others in retaliation for a wrong act done to him. The urge for revenge mainly originates from anger, hatred, envy, and grief. […]

  2. Revenge Essay

    1 page / 515 words. Revenge is a concept that has fascinated and troubled humanity for millennia. From the ancient tales of epic heroes seeking vengeance to contemporary crime dramas, the desire for retaliation has been a recurring theme in literature, philosophy, and everyday life. In this essay, we will... Revenge. 2.

  3. Revenge Essays: Samples & Topics

    Essay Examples. Revenge, at its core, is the act of seeking retaliation for a perceived injustice or harm. It stems from a primal human instinct to restore balance and redress wrongs. The desire for revenge often emerges from feelings of anger, betrayal, or a sense of injustice, compelling individuals to take matters into their own hands.

  4. Revenge in Hamlet By Shakespeare

    Introduction. A man who desires revenge should dig two graves, one for himself and for the person the he is seeking vengeance from. William Shakespear introduced revenge throughout the play and well defined it as someone pursuing revenge is looking to fight back for a wrong that has been done. In Hamlet, the act of revenge causes many great ...

  5. Essay on Revenge

    Students are often asked to write an essay on Revenge in their schools and colleges. And if you're also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic. Let's take a look… 100 Words Essay on Revenge Understanding Revenge. Revenge is when someone hurts you and you want to hurt them back.

  6. Revenge is sweet: Investigation of the effects of

    1. INTRODUCTION "It [revenge] is far sweeter than honey." — Homer, The Illiad Individuals pursue revenge as perceived rewarding events, in which there exists a belief that the act of revenge will be satisfying or pleasurable (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008).The perception of the utility of revenge appears to be widespread; indeed, even a brief review of a wide array of media, including ...

  7. Essay Writing Service. Skilled Academic Essay Writer Online

    We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.

  8. Revenge as social interaction: Merging social psychological and

    Finally, an integrated approach to revenge reveals, in ways we think are more readily apparent than when revenge is viewed solely through either a social psychology or communication lens alone that, when it is performed well (i.e., competently), revenge can deepen understanding between people by illuminating, clarifying, and accenting an ...

  9. How to Write an Essay Introduction

    Table of contents. Step 1: Hook your reader. Step 2: Give background information. Step 3: Present your thesis statement. Step 4: Map your essay's structure. Step 5: Check and revise. More examples of essay introductions. Other interesting articles. Frequently asked questions about the essay introduction.

  10. Revenge Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines

    Revenge Edgar Allen Poe's The Cask of. PAGES 3 WORDS 1035. Revenge. Edgar Allen Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado," Andre Dubus's "Killings," and Louise Eldrich's "Fleur" are all short stories about revenge. Although they treat the theme of revenge differently, the authors show that the exacting of revenge can indeed be a satisfying finale to a ...

  11. How to Write a Great College Essay Introduction

    Unoriginal essay introductions are easily forgotten and don't demonstrate a high level of creative thinking. A college essay is intended to give insight into the personality and background of an applicant, so a standard, one-size-fits-all introduction may lead admissions officers to think they are dealing with a standard, unremarkable applicant.

  12. Of Revenge by Francis Bacon Summary & Analysis

    Of Revenge by Francis Bacon is a short but meaningful essay that carries the author personal views about the great upsurge of nowadays society that is "revenge". Bacon starts the essay by calling revenge as animalistic behavior by using the words "wild justice" for it. By such contrast, he describes the whole picture of the animal and ...

  13. The Merchant of Venice: A+ Student Essay

    Shakespeare's courtroom scene dramatizes a conflict between justice and mercy—the competing claims of an angry Shylock and a desperate Bassanio. This argument mirrors several smaller disputes and personal crises throughout The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare's characters must frequently weigh their sense of grievance against their sense ...

  14. Hamlet Revenge Essay

    Revenge And Revenge In Hamlet. The play "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare is about a guy named Hamlet going through a hard time in life, after the death of his father, and the remarriage of his mother to his uncle. Throughout the play were are able to get a greater understanding of who Hamlet really is.

  15. Revenge

    Introduction In Nathaniel Hawthorne's masterpiece, The Scarlet Letter, the overarching theme of revenge takes center stage, driving the actions of the main antagonist, Roger Chillingworth. This essay delves into the profound impact of revenge on Chillingworth's character, unraveling the depths of his obsession and the tragic consequences that ...

  16. The Theme of Revenge in Hamlet

    Hamlet, Revenge is a play that focuses on revenge as a whole. Conclusion. There are many things that can be learned from this theme, such as why revenge is necessary and what its consequences are. The only thing that could be achieved in Shakespeare's Hamlet was revenge. It is possible to justify it, but the play concludes that revenge is bad.

  17. An Introduction to the Emotion of Revenge, an Invaluable Tool ...

    Revenge has caused the downfall of many a person. Its consuming nature causes one to act recklessly through anger rather than reason. Revenge is an emotion easily rationalised; one turn deserves another. However, this is a very dangerous theory to live by. Throughout Hamlet, revenge is a do...

  18. About Revenge Essay Free Essay Example

    Download. Essay, Pages 10 (2326 words) Views. 5871. If there is one thing that has been prevalent since human interaction began, it is the concept of revenge. Everyone has a moment in their life where someone does them wrong, and they want nothing more than to get back at the person who is responsible. While this reaction is completely normal ...

  19. The Theme of Revenge in Hamlet

    Introduction. In Hamlet, revenge is often integrated into multiple events and is a predominant theme in the play. The play begins with a ghost walking through the ramparts of Elsinore Castle in Denmark on a dark, chilly night. The ghost is soon revealed to be Hamlet's deceased father, King Hamlet, whose sibling Claudius has acquired his ...

  20. How to Start an Essay: 7 Tips for a Knockout Essay Introduction

    Intriguing ways to start an essay. There are many different ways to write an essay introduction. Each has its benefits and potential drawbacks, and each is best suited for certain kinds of essays.Although these essay introductions use different rhetorical devices and prime the reader in different ways, they all achieve the same goal: hooking the reader and enticing them to keep reading.

  21. The Concepts Of Revenge Vs Justice

    The Difference of Justice and Revenge. Justice, in its broadest definition, is the concept or idea of moral rightness based on many things such as ethics, rationality, government or natural laws, or beliefs religious or personal. Or the act of being just or fair in response to wrongdoing. Justice is about restoring the balance but revenge, on ...

  22. Revenge Essay

    Revenge Essay: The concept of revenge, its origin, manifestation, and negative impact on people and nations. Revenge is the hostile outcome of human emotion that drives someone to hurt or do harm to others in retaliation for a wrong act done to him. The urge for revenge mainly originates from anger, hatred, envy, and grief.

  23. Revenge In Hamlet Essay

    Theme of Revenge in "Hamlet" Essay "If you seek revenge, dig two graves." This ancient Chinese proverb explains the mood in Hamlet, a play, written by Shakespeare. The theme of revenge is seen throughout the play as each character extracts one form or another of revenge from a person who has wronged them.

  24. Opinion

    Guest Essay. China's Electric Vehicles Are Going to Hit Detroit Like a Wrecking Ball. Feb. 27, 2024. Credit... Nic Antaya for The New York Times. Share full article. 2231. By Robinson Meyer.