Content uploaded by Myrke Nieweg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Myrke Nieweg on Aug 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
BRIEF REPORT
Deservingness and Schadenfreude
Wilco W. van Dijk, Jaap W. Ouwerkerk, Sjoerd Goslinga, and
Myrke Nieweg
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The present study tested the hypothesis that Schadenfreude, pleasure at another's
misfortune, results when a misfortune is perceived as deserved. Participants
responded to interviews in which information was provided about a student who
suffered a misfortune. The male or female student had either high or average
achievements and was either responsible or not responsible for the misfortune.
Results showed that responsibility for the misfortune increased Schadenfreude and
this effect was mediated by the perceived deservingness of the misfortune.
When bad things happen to other people one's reaction is often one of sympathy. However,
sometimes these occasions give rise to Schadenfreude, pleasure at another's misfortune. It
has been empirically shown that this latter feeling can be evoked by misfortunes happening
to people who are envied (Smith et al., 1996), resented (Feather & Sherman, 2002), or
disliked (Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Another determinant of Schadenfreude which has been
proposed by several scholars is the perceived deservingness of a misfortune. Presumably,
the more a misfortune is seen as deserved, the more Schadenfreude will be evoked (Ben-
Ze'ev, 2000; Feather, 1994, 1999; Heider, 1958; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Portmann,
1999). Although correlational data support this argument (Feather, 1989; Feather &
Sherman, 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002), experimental research has not shown a causal link
between deservingness and Schadenfreude. In the present research we will investigate this
link experimentally by manipulating the deservingness of a misfortune. We attempt to do
this by varying the responsibility for a misfortune.
Earlier research has indicated that responsibility for an outcome is an important
variable determining the deservingness of this outcome (see Feather, 1994, 1999 for an
overview). A person who is responsible for his/her own good fortune is seen as deserving
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr Wilco W. van Dijk,
Department of Social Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail: ww.van.dijk@psy.vu.nl
We thank Aeron Vos for collecting the data and Marcello Gallucci for his useful comments on an
earlier version of the manuscript.
#2005 Psychology Press Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/02699931.html DOI:10.1080/02699930541000066
COGNITION AND EMOTION
2005, 19 (6), 933±939
this positive outcome. Likewise, a person who is responsible for his/her own bad fortune
is seen as deserving this misfortune. According to this line of reasoning and in con-
junction with the assumed link between deservingness and Schadenfreude, it can be
expected that a person who is responsible for his/her own misfortune will be seen as
deserving this misfortune and will therefore evoke Schadenfreude.
Earlier studies on Schadenfreude in which deservingness was manipulated by means of
different degrees of responsibility, failed to yield any significant effects of this manip-
ulation on Schadenfreude. Although Brigham, Kelso, Jackson, and Smith (1997) found that
a setback of a superior student evoked more Schadenfreude than a setback of an average
student, and that a student who was not responsible for the setback elicited more sympathy
than a student who was responsible, they did not find the expected effect of responsibility on
Schadenfreude. However, it should be noted that in this study both target persons and
participants were male, which might have limited generalisation of these findings. Results
of Feather and Sherman's (2002) study also yielded an effect of responsibility on sympathy
(i.e., a student's failure due to a very difficult exam elicited more sympathy than a failure
due to a student's own actions), but again did not yield an effect of responsibility on
Schadenfreude. However, close inspection of the data reveals that in both high and low
responsibility conditions mean ratings of perceived responsibility were above the midpoint
of the scale, indicating that in both conditions targets were more seen as responsible than as
not responsible for their own misfortune. This lack of clear not responsible targets might
have prevented finding a significant relationship between responsibility and Schaden-
freude. Thus, in our view, the failure to find empirical support for the supposed link between
responsibility on Schadenfreude might be attributed to the above mentioned issues.
Moreover, we argue that when one takes into account these possible limitations, as we did in
the present research, the theoretically posited relationship between responsibility and
Schadenfreude might be obtained empirically.
In the present research we use a procedure, which is comparable to those used in earlier
research on Schadenfreude (Brigham et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1996). First, a target is
introduced (either a superior or average student) and reactions towards this target are
assessed. Second, participants are informed that the target suffered a recent misfortune (for
which the student is either responsible or not) and reactions towards this misfortune are
assessed. In line with earlier research we expect that superior targets evoke both more envy
and more Schadenfreude than average targets and that a misfortune for which a target is not
responsible evokes more sympathy than a misfortune for which a target is responsible (cf.
Brigham et al., 1997; Feather & Sherman, 2002; Smith et al., 1996). More importantly, we
expect that a misfortune for which a target is responsible evokes more Schadenfreude than a
misfortune for which a target is not responsible, and that this effect is mediated by the
perceived deservingness of the misfortune. If so, this provides the first experimental
evidence for the often assumed link between deservingness and Schadenfreude.
METHOD
Participants and design
A total of 196 students (100 women, 96 men) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam parti-
cipated in the experiment and were paid for their participation. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of the conditions of the 2 (Achievements Target: high vs. average) 62
(Gender Target: male vs. female) 62 (Responsibility Target: responsible vs. not
responsible) factorial design, 22±27 participants took part in each of the eight conditions.
934 VAN DIJK ET AL.
Experimental procedure
Participants were invited to the laboratory to participate in a study on the impact of
different media on impression formation. On arrival at the laboratory, they were led to
separate cubicles, which each contained a computer that was used to present stimulus
information and to collect data on the dependent variables. Participants were told that
some of them would read two written interviews, while others would listen to an
audiotape or watch a videotape of the interviews. Importantly, details of both procedure
and interviews were designed to let participants believe that the interviews concerned real
interviews. For example, participants were told that these interviews were part of a series
of interviews called ``Studying in the 21st century'' that were collected in cooperation
with the university. All participants were then told that they were randomly selected to
read two written interviews on the computer: one with a student at the university and one
with the student's tutor.
In the first interview a student gave information about how he/she was progressing at
the university. In this interview both student's achievements and gender were manipu-
lated. In the high achievements condition details were manipulated to make the student
appear outstanding in terms of academic achievements, research, and likelihood of get-
ting a good job. In the average achievements condition, details were adjusted to make the
student appear average in these terms. Gender of the student was manipulated by using a
male student named Erik in half of the conditions and in the other half of the conditions a
female student named Esther.
After reading the first interview, participants' reactions towards the student were
assessed. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with seven statements
1
(1 =
strongly disagree,7=strongly agree). Four statements assessed envy (e.g., I would like to
be in the position of [Esther/Erik];
2
I feel less good when I compare my own results to
those of [. . .]). Three statements assessed dislike (e.g., I dislike [. . .]; I have a feeling of
contempt towards [. . .]).
Next, participants read an interview with the student's tutor, supposedly held three
months after the interview with the student. This interview informed participants about a
setback recently suffered by the student. The tutor told them that either the student was
caught stealing a laptop from the university and was subject to a criminal investigation or
that the student was wrongly accused of stealing a laptop.
After reading this second interview, participants' reactions towards the misfortune
were assessed. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with 15 statements (1 =
strongly disagree,7=strongly agree). Five statements assessed Schadenfreude (e.g., I
enjoy what happened to [. ..]; I couldn't resist a little smile; I feel Schadenfreude
3
). Three
statements assessed sympathy (e.g., I commiserate with [. . .] about what happened; and I
sympathize with [. . .]). Three statements assessed responsibility for the misfortune (e.g., I
find that [. . .] is responsible for what has happened; [. . .] has caused the situation. Four
1
These statements were enclosed within several filler items. Among these filler items were
several questions especially designed to reinforce the claim made in the instructions that the study
was concerned with impression formation and the use of different media. These questions asked, for
example, to what extent they used different media (i.e., TV, radio, newspapers), and whether they
were connected to the internet.
2
Depending upon conditions, the name Esther or Erik was used in the statements.
3
We used the term ``leedvermaak'', which is the Dutch word for Schadenfreude. The first use of
this word in Dutch language has been dated at the year 1811.
DESERVINGNESS AND SCHADENFREUDE 935
statements assessed deservingness of the misfortune (e.g., I find it just what happened; I
find what happened to [. . .] is deserved). After participants had finished they were
debriefed and paid.
RESULTS
Reliability assessments
Cronbach alphas for the four envy items, three dislike items, five Schadenfreude items,
three sympathy items, three responsibility items, and four deservingness items were .77,
.85, .87, .85, .97, and .94, respectively, indicating high internal consistency for each scale.
Analyses of variances
All reported analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were performed with Responsibility Target
(responsible vs. not responsible), Achievements Target (average vs. high), Gender Target
(male vs. female), and Gender Participant (male vs. female) as independent variables.
Manipulation checks. An ANOVA performed on the three-item measure of
responsibility yielded a significant main effect of responsibility, F(1, 180) = 376.96, p
< .001, Z
2
= .68. Participants in the responsible condition perceived the target as more
responsible for his/her own misfortune (M= 5.89, SD = 0.96) than participants in the not
responsible condition (M= 2.46, SD = 1.45). An ANOVA performed on the four-item
measure of envy (as an indirect measure of achievements of the target) yielded a
significant main effect of achievements, F(1, 181) = 54.01, p< .001, Z
2
= .23.
Participants in the high achievements condition reported greater envy (M= 3.32, SD =
1.13) than participants in the average achievements condition (M= 2.25, SD = 0.86). In
both ANOVAs, none of the other main or interaction effects was significant. This
suggests that both the manipulations of responsibility and achievements were successful.
4
Finally, an ANOVA performed on the four-item measure of deservingness yielded a
significant main effect of responsibility, F(1, 181) = 167.02, p< .001, Z
2
= .48.
Participants in the responsible condition perceived the misfortune as more deserved (M=
4.41, SD = 1.39) than participants in the not responsible condition (M= 2.07, SD = 1.17).
5
This suggests that the manipulation of responsibility had the predicted effect on the
perceived deservingness of the misfortune.
Schadenfreude. An ANOVA performed on the five-item measure of Schadenfreude
yielded significant main effects of responsibility, F(1, 180) = 13.11, p< .001, Z
2
= .07;
4
Moreover, an ANOVA performed on the three-item measure of dislike revealed no significant
differences among conditions in how much participants disliked the target, indicating that the
manipulation of achievements had created no differences in how much the participants disliked the
target. Means for dislike in the eight conditions varied between 2.06 and 2.78.
5
Unexpectedly, results also revealed a significant three-way interaction between responsibility,
gender of the target, and gender of the participant, F(1, 180) = 4.42, p< .05, Z
2
= .02. Means for
deservingness did not differ in the not responsible condition (means varied between 1.96 and 2.24).
In the responsible condition female participants perceived a misfortune for a female target as more
deserved than male participants did (4.99 vs. 3.80). No difference in deservingness between female
and male participants was found for male targets (4.32 vs. 4.50).
936 VAN DIJK ET AL.
achievements, F(1, 180) = 4.86, p< .05, Z
2
= .03; and gender of the participant, F(1, 180)
= 7.34, p< .01, Z
2
= .04. As predicted by our main hypothesis, participants in the
responsible condition experienced more Schadenfreude (M= 2.78, SD = 1.23) than
participants in the not responsible condition (M= 2.14, SD = 1.19). Furthermore,
participants in the high achievements condition experienced more Schadenfreude (M=
2.65, SD = 1.35) than participants in the average achievements condition (M= 2.28, SD =
1.12). Finally, male participants experienced more Schadenfreude (M= 2.70, SD = 1.34)
than female participants (M= 2.23, SD = 1.12). None of the other main or interaction
effects was significant.
Sympathy. An ANOVA performed on the three-item measure of sympathy yielded
significant main effects of responsibility, F(1, 180) = 120.43, p< .001, Z
2
= .40; and
achievements, F(1, 180) = 5.02, p< .05, Z
2
= .03. Participants in the responsible
condition experienced less sympathy (M= 3.31, SD = 1.81) than participants in the not
responsible condition (M= 5.71, SD = 1.21). Furthermore, participants in the high
achievements condition experienced more sympathy (M= 4.41, SD = 1.29) than
participants in the average achievements condition (M= 4.08, SD = 1.70). Next to these
main effects, also a significant interaction effect between achievements and responsibility
was found, F(1, 180) = 4.17, p< .05, Z
2
= .02. Inspection of the means indicated that
participants experienced more sympathy for a responsible target with high achievements
(M= 3.68, SD = 0.99) than for a responsible target with average achievements (M= 2.92,
SD = 1.25). No difference in sympathy was found for not responsible targets with either
high (M= 5.18, SD = 1.11) or average achievements (M= 5.16, SD = 1.31). None of the
other main or interaction effects was significant.
Mediation analysis
To test whether deservingness would mediate the impact of responsibility on Schaden-
freude we conducted a series of regression analyses. We first regressed Schadenfreude on
responsibility and obtained a significant effect (b= .28, p< .001). Next, we regressed the
mediator, deservingness, on responsibility and obtained a significant effect (b= .74, p<
.001). Third, we regressed Schadenfreude on responsibility and deservingness. Deserv-
ingness had a significant effect on Schadenfreude (b= .31, p< .001). The effect of
responsibility on Schadenfreude, after controlling for deservingness, was not significant
(b= .10, n.s.). The test of the mediated pathway (Sobel test) was significant (Z= 4.38, p<
.001). These results suggest that the effect of responsibility on Schadenfreude is mediated
by deservingness.
6
6
A second series of regression analyses suggested that deservingness partially mediated the effect
of responsibility on sympathy. Regressing sympathy on responsibility yielded a significant effect (b
=7.70, p< .001). Regressing the mediator, deservingness, on responsibility also yielded a sig-
nificant effect (b= .74, p< .001). Regressing sympathy on responsibility and deservingness yielded a
significant effect of deservingness (b= ±.21, p< .01). Although, the effect of responsibility, after
controlling for deservingness, was still significant (b=7.55, p< .001), the test of the mediated
pathway was significant (Z= 2.77, p< .01).
DESERVINGNESS AND SCHADENFREUDE 937
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study yielded the first experimental evidence for the often
assumed link between deservingness and Schadenfreude. Results showed that the more a
target is responsible for his/her own misfortune, the more this misfortune is seen as
deserved, which in turn elicits more Schadenfreude. Furthermore, the results of the
present study replicates prior results concerning Schadenfreude and sympathy. It was
shown that superior targets evoke both more envy and Schadenfreude, whereas not
responsible targets evoke more sympathy than responsible targets (cf. Brigham et al.,
1997; Feather & Sherman, 2002; Smith et al., 1996).
One might argue what it is about our study that verifies the theoretically posited link
between deservingness and Schadenfreude that previous studies failed to document. Did
we stumble on a particular set of circumstances in which the predicted relationship holds?
We do not think so, in our view the linkage between deservingness and Schadenfreude is
as general as the theoretical accounts of Schadenfreude suggest. Some of our own recent
studies give support for this. In one study, using a similar paradigm as the present study
but with a different manipulation of deservingness, we also found a significant
relationship between deservingness and Schadenfreude (van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga,
& Nieweg, 2004a). An even stronger argument for the generalisability of our present
results is the fact that we recently also replicated our present results using a clearly
different paradigm. In this study we used a social exclusion paradigm and found that
social exclusion of a group member elicits more Schadenfreude in fellow group members
when the exclusion was perceived as deserved than when it was perceived as undeserved
(van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Nieweg, 2004b).
In the present study we used a manipulation of responsibility to create differences in
perceived deservingness of a misfortune. This does not mean that responsibility is the
only variable that can influence deservingness of a misfortune. For example, earlier work
on envy suggests that envy involves a sense that the envied person's advantage is
undeserved (Heider, 1958; Parrott, 1991; Smith, 1991; Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz,
1994). A misfortune befalling an envied person, may then evoke a sense that a wrong has
been righted and that the misfortune is perceived as deserved (cf. Smith et al., 1996).
Furthermore, Feather and Sherman (2002) showed that a target with undeserved
achievements evokes resentment and a wish that this target should be ``cut down to size''.
A misfortune befalling this target could satisfy this wish and be perceived as deserved. A
line of reasoning that is supported by the finding of Feather and Sherman that targets with
undeserved achievements were seen as deserving their misfortune more than targets with
deserved achievements. In short, we argue that Schadenfreude will be evoked by the
deservingness of a misfortune. Perceiving a misfortune as deserved, however, can be
evoked by different variables. The present study showed that the responsibility for a
misfortune is an important determinant of deservingness and therefore also an important
determinant of Schadenfreude.
In closing, we like to mention some methodological considerations for studying
Schadenfreude. In our view, the most suitable methodology will be one in which actual
(comparison) information is provided, key measures have been filtered among other
items, and a cover story is included that masks the true purpose of the study. This will
minimise both experimental demands and social desirability, an issue that is very relevant
in the context of studying less social desirable emotions. In this study we used a
938 VAN DIJK ET AL.
methodology, comparable to the one used by Brigham et al. (1997) and Smith et al.
(1996), which combines these features. Next to these methodological considerations, we
would be very much in favour of using both male and female targets. Earlier studies on
Schadenfreude differed from each other in this respect. Whereas Feather and Sherman
(2002) used gender-unspecific targets, both Brigham et al. and Smith et al. used only male
targets. Moreover, Brigham et al. also only included male participants in their study.
These differences may hinder both comparisons between studies and generalisation of
obtained results.
Manuscript received 28 February 2003
Revised manuscript received 28 July 2004
REFERENCES
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brigham, N. L., Kelso, K. A., Jackson, M. A., & Smith, R. H. (1997). The roles of invidious
comparisons and deservingness in sympathy and schadenfreude.Basic and Applied Social
Psychology,19, 363±380.
Feather, N. T. (1994). Attitudes towards high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and
research concerning tall poppies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,26, 1±73.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psychology of justice and
achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Review,3, 86±107.
Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, Schadenfreude, and sympathy: Reactions to
deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,28, 953±961.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another's misfortune.
Motivation and Emotion,24, 215±234.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experience of envy and jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3±30). New York: Guilford Press.
Portmann, J. (2000). When bad things happen to other people. New York: Routledge.
Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy
and envy (pp. 79±99). New York: Guilford Press.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority as
predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20, 705±711.
Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C. W., Urch-Druskat, V., & Weston, C. M. (1996).
Envy and Schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22, 158±168.
van Dijk, W.W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., & Nieweg, M. (2004a). Punishment should fit the
crime: Effects of deservingness of achievements on Schadenfreude. Manuscript in preparation.
van Dijk, W.W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Nieweg, M. (2004b). Poster presented at the International
Society for Research on Emotions, New York, USA.
DESERVINGNESS AND SCHADENFREUDE 939
