Revenge and Conflict: Social and Cognitive Aspects - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 72

of revenge as a primary motivation of human conduct, but it also highlights that the
quest for compensation and the related willingness to make the target suffer have a
distinctive neural signature.

4.2.1 Retaliation and Revenge: Similarities and Differences

Revenge is not the only kind of reaction to a wrong humans can resort to, and among
the several available options, retaliation seems to be the safest one. Revenge and
retaliation are closely related and apparently similar, and in everyday language, they
are frequently used as synonyms. The Oxford dictionary definition for retaliation is
“make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack,” and retaliation can be
conceptualized as a form of retribution without the excesses of revenge. Retaliation
is immediate and proportionate and its costs are strictly related to the damage
suffered; therefore, it seems to be more adequate than revenge. If this is true, then
a question arises: why do we not use retaliation, instead of revenge? Does revenge
bring about something more than retaliation, thus supporting our hypothesis that
humans cannot get rid of vengeful desires and behaviors?
Table 4.1 summarizes the three main dimensions along which retaliation and
revenge differ, and shows whether a given element is present or not in these
two behaviors. Suffering is the first and foremost difference between revenge and
retaliation. The goal of having back something or of repaying a damage received
with another damage is not enough to trigger revenge, because the latter implies
more than a simple wrong. Kelsen ( 1943 ) highlights the importance of retribution in
both behaviors, but he specifies that pairing the evil is not enough to talk of revenge
and the infliction of an evil in turn is required:
The behavior interpreted as retribution is not clearly distinguished from a mere defensive
reaction which arises from a desire for self-preservation or, at least among higher beings,
as a countertendency to the causation of pain. It is proper to speak of 'vengeance' only if
the reaction in question is made with the intent not only to parry the evil but also to inflict
an evil in turn, either on the 'author' of the evil or on someone associated with him who is
thus regarded as collectively responsible. (p. 49)

While in retaliation the action is a simple payback, so the wrong suffered
corresponds in quality and/or quantity with the wrong imposed, the avenger wants
to repay the suffering and not only the material loss. A kid hitting another kid
at the playground in response for a kick is just retaliating, without any vengeful
purpose. Barash and Lipton ( 2011 ) suggest that revenge, in contrast with retaliation,

Table 4.1 Defining features
in retaliation and revenge

Retaliation Revenge

Suffering (in addition to retribution) No Ye s

Proportionality Ye s No

Focus on the actor No Ye s