Ability and Willingness of Victim to Retaliate
Action taken in return for an injury or offense.
The concept of retaliation has historically been defined from both a behavioral and functional aspect. At its core, retaliation is based upon the premise of inciting organisms to increase benefit while reducing cost to oneself (McCullough et al. 2013). If a target organism can emit the potential ideal for retaliation toward an aggressor organism (typically in the form of retaliation itself), the target organism may increase its chances of lifetime productivity and may continue to evolve due to this willingness to retaliate. In other words, by making the potential costs of harm too high for an aggressor (imminent retaliation), the target organism is more likely to survive by avoiding harm against oneself.
Definitions that have previously influenced academics in the conceptualization of retaliation have typically been defined from a functional prospective. The O...
- Adams, S. J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
- Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment and animal societies. Nature, 373, 209–216.Google Scholar
- Figueredo, A. J. (1995). Preliminary report: Family deterrence of domestic violence in Spain. Tucson: Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kim, S. H., & Smith, R. H., (1993). Revenge and conflict escalation. Negotiation Journal, 9, 37–43.Google Scholar
- McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2008). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In P. R. Shaver and M. Milulincer (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression, violence, and their consequences (221–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar