Emotion 2009, Vol 9, No 5, 659 – 665 © 2009 American Psychological Association 1528-3542/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016815 Dejection at In-Group Defeat and Schadenfreude Toward Second- and Third-Party Out-Groups Colin Wayne Leach and Russell Spears University of Amsterdam It has been argued that the emotional pain of being outshone by a second party leads to the malicious pleasure of schadenfreude when this second party subsequently suffers a misfortune However, direct tests of this idea are rare, especially at the intergroup level Thus, the authors presented participants with their country’s defeat in international competition by a second party and then presented this second party as failing Participants’ dejection at their in-group’s defeat led to schadenfreude toward the second party Consistent with the notion that it affirms the self, schadenfreude toward the second party was associated with positive evaluation of the in-group Dejection at defeat by a second party also led to schadenfreude toward a third party who had not defeated the in-group Schadenfreude toward the third party was associated with negative evaluation of the third party rather than positive evaluation of the in-group As such schadenfreude toward the third party was more malicious Keywords: schadenfreude, dejection, failure, emotion, intergroup relations, intergroup emotion In-groups can provide us with the thrill of collective victory or the agony of collective defeat Defeat tends to make people feel bad (for reviews, see Smith, 2000; Tesser, 1988) Where people are defeated, or otherwise outshone, by a second party in a single competition they often feel the fairly circumscribed dysphoria of “dejection” (for reviews, see Higgins, 1987; Lazarus, 1991) Where people are repeatedly defeated or otherwise outshone in a way that suggests a more general inferiority in a domain they may feel the greater dysphoria of shame and humiliation (Leach & Spears, 2008; for reviews, see Higgins, 1987; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988) Whether single or repeated, defeat is considered important to intergroup relations because the attendant dysphoria has been thought to promote malevolence toward the victors For example, both relative deprivation theory and social identity theory suggest that the subjective experience of in-group defeat fuels enmity toward the victorious out-group (for reviews, see Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Smith & Kessler, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) The dysphoria of in-group defeat is also thought to lead to malevolence toward third parties, who played no role in defeating the in-group (for reviews, see Allport, 1954/1979; Duckitt, 1992; Wills, 1981) The long-standing notion that prejudice is more prevalent among those who have experienced a loss in their economic or other fortunes is based in this idea, sometimes referred to as “poor white racism” or the frustration-aggression hypothesis (see Leach & Spears, 2008; Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003) Despite this consistency of thinking, there is only mixed evidence that being defeated in intergroup competition leads to malevolence toward either the victorious second party or toward an uninvolved third party (for reviews, see Duckitt, 1992; Wills, 1981) For example, Bettencourt et al (2001) conducted a metaanalysis of experiments that provided individuals with feedback regarding their in-group’s performance relative to an out-group on a task or in some other form of competition Compared with victorious in-groups, defeated in-groups showed less negative evaluation of the out-group in the domain in which the in-group was outshone Based on these and other results, Spears, Jetten, and Doosje (2001) argued that the reality of being defeated, or otherwise outshone, constrains the malevolence that in-group members can show toward the out-group in the domain of its victory Defeated in-groups must, perhaps begrudgingly, acknowledge that the victorious out-group has performed better Direct and active malevolence toward an out-group in the domain of their victory would only serve to suggest that the in-group is bitter about its defeat Recently, Leach et al (2003) suggested that the “reality constraint” on direct and active malevolence toward an out-group who has outshone an in-group may make indirect and passive malevolence toward such second parties likely (see also Spears & Leach, 2004) Thus, they argued that an in-group defeat was likely to lead to the passive and indirect malevolence shown in the emotion of schadenfreude—pleasure at the misfortune that happenstance causes another party This article elaborates on this idea in four main ways First, we propose that the emotional pain of dejection that individuals feel about their in-group’s defeat by a second party is Colin Wayne Leach, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, and Russell Spears, School of Psychology, Cardiff University Both authors contributed equally to this paper Colin Wayne Leach is currently at the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Russell Spears is currently at the School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, U.K This work was conducted at the University of Amsterdam with the support of a visiting scholars grant to C W Leach from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Colin Wayne Leach, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, U-1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020 E-mail: colin.leach@ uconn.edu 659 LEACH AND SPEARS 660 a potent explanation of why these individuals feel schadenfreude at the second party’s subsequent failure The greater individuals’ dejection at their in-group’s defeat, the greater schadenfreude they should feel when the second party subsequently fails in this domain As far as we are aware, no previous research has examined how individuals (subjectively) feel about an (objective) defeat as an explanation of schadenfreude Dejection at defeat is an intriguing explanation of schadenfreude partly because it suggests that a dysphoric feeling about the self can lead to a euphoric feeling about another This kind of dynamic shift in the valence and target of emotions has rarely been examined empirically at the individual or the group level Second, we examine the implications of schadenfreude toward a second party for group-level self-evaluation More specifically, we assess whether schadenfreude toward a second party is associated with positive evaluation of the in-group This tests the idea that individuals take pleasure in the failure of a second party who has defeated them because it is a self-affirming response to the emotional pain of the defeat In this way, schadenfreude may operate as a form of emotion-focused coping with the dysphoria of dejection at defeat Third, we examine the provocative idea that dejection at defeat by a second party can also lead to schadenfreude toward a third party who did not defeat the in-group Thus, after establishing participants’ in-group as defeated by a second party, we presented either this second part or a third party as subsequently failing Dejection at in-group defeat should lead to schadenfreude toward either the second or the third party However, dejection-based schadenfreude toward a third party is especially malicious, because this out-group played no role in causing the in-group’s defeat Fourth, we examine the implications of schadenfreude toward a third party Given that the third party did not defeat the in-group, the third party’s failure does nothing to directly redress the ingroup‘s defeat Thus, schadenfreude at a third party’s failure should not be associated with positive evaluation of the in-group However, as a malevolent emotion, schadenfreude toward a third party should be associated with negative evaluation of the third party If schadenfreude toward a third party is associated with negative evaluation of the third party, but not positive evaluation of the in-group, this would be further evidence that schadenfreude toward a third party is especially malicious In fact, schadenfreude that is associated with negative evaluation of an out-group may be considered a form of prejudice (see also Leach et al., 2003) Schadenfreude Toward Second Parties Most conceptualizations presume that schadenfreude is directed at second parties who have suffered a misfortune after defeating, or otherwise outshining, the self For example, Heider (1958) argued that it is pleasing to witness the failure of a second party who has outshone the self because the second party’s failure reduces their invidious advantage over the self (see also Ortony et al., 1988; Smith, 2000) Thus, Heider (1958) suggested that schadenfreude serves as a positive affirmation of the self after the dysphoric experience of being outshone Schoeck’s (1969) review of classic philosophical, psychological, and sociological thinking suggests that there is widespread agreement that the dysphoria of being outshone by a second party makes individuals prone to schadenfreude if this second party subsequently suffers a misfortune However, despite its appealing logic, this model has not been carefully examined in previous research (conducted mostly at the interpersonal level) Most previous research has exposed individuals to a highly successful peer who subsequently suffered a failure or other misfortune (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, & Nieweg, 2005; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, Nieweg, & Gallucci, 2006) As a result, these studies have not established a second party as defeating the self or established a second party as relatively more successful than the self Perhaps for this reason, no previous study of schadenfreude has directly assessed how people feel about being defeated, or otherwise outshone, by a second party Schadenfreude was simply presumed to follow from exposure to a successful peer because it served to affirm the selfconcept of those presumably dejected at being outshone by this second party’s success Because being defeated by a second party in direct competition clearly establishes the self as outshone by this second party, Leach et al (2003, Study 2) used this method in a unique study of schadenfreude at the intergroup level In the context of the 2000 European Championship of football, they made salient to half of their Dutch participants that the country had recently been eliminated from the competition by Italy Participants were then presented with an account of Italy’s subsequent failure against another country Making salient the Dutch defeat by Italy led to greater schadenfreude at Italy’s subsequent failure, but only under conditions that appeared to free participants from the reality constraint imposed by this second party’s defeat of the in-group Thus, the present study returned to the context of the 2000 European Championship of football to provide more clear evidence that being defeated by a second party leads to schadenfreude at this party’s subsequent failure Establishing participants’ in-group as being outshone by a particular defeat enabled us to go beyond previous research by assessing specific feelings of dejection about this defeat The specific feeling of dejection at defeat that should be a potent explanation of schadenfreude at the subsequent failure of the second party In a further extension of previous research, we examined the implications that schadenfreude toward a second party has for participants’ self-evaluation If schadenfreude at the failure of a second party serves to affirm the self, as suggested by Heider (1958) and Schoeck (1969), among others, then schadenfreude should be associated with greater positive self-evaluation Thus, after participants are presented with the failure of the second party who had defeated them, we assessed the degree to which they positively evaluated their in-group by ascribing positive traits to it As far as we are aware, no previous work on schadenfreude, whether at the interpersonal or intergroup level, has examined its association with positive self-evaluation However, the so-called “self-esteem hypothesis” of social identity theory suggests that malevolence toward an out-group serves to affirm in-group identity and promote positive evaluation of the self In a narrative review, Rubin and Hewstone (1998) concluded that 18 of 31 studies showed that evaluating an out-group less positively than the in-group was associated with greater individual self-esteem and/or more positive evaluation of the in-group A study by Branscombe and Wann (1994) illustrates this pattern They showed U.S participants a clip of the film Rocky, manipulating whether the U.S protagonist was defeated by (or was victorious DEJECTION AND SCHADENFREUDE TOWARD OUT-GROUPS against) a Russian opponent Where participants’ in-group had been defeated, the more they subsequently devalued Russians the more positively they felt about their in-group However, this kind of direct and active devaluation and subsequent self-evaluation may only be likely in overtly hostile social relations We view schadenfreude at the failure of an out-group who has defeated the in-group as a more indirect and passive route to such positive in-group evaluation This insidious prejudice has received very little attention (Spears & Leach, 2004) Schadenfreude Toward Third Parties In concert with contemporary views, Nietzsche (1887/1967) argued that people who have been outshone by a second party are prone to feel schadenfreude at this party’s subsequent misfortune However Nietzsche diverged from the prevailing view in suggesting that people can take advantage of any relevant party’s failure if it allows them to feel something more pleasant than the dysphoria of being outshone Thus, according to Nietzsche, defeat by a second party can lead to schadenfreude toward this second party or toward a third party (who has not outshone the self) The only empirical evidence of this comes from Leach et al (2003, Study 2) They found that making salient the Netherlands’ defeat by Italy actually increased schadenfreude at (third party) Germany’s failure (under particular circumstances) Although Germany played no role in the in-group’s defeat, having never faced the Netherlands in this competition, some participants took pleasure in learning of Germany’s failure in the domain of the in-group’s defeat Although Leach et al (2003, Study 2) offered initial evidence that an in-group’s defeat by a second party leads to schadenfreude toward a third party, this finding was dependent on several contextual factors Thus, we think it important to offer more clear evidence that defeat by a second party can lead to schadenfreude toward a third party More importantly, we wish to extend previous work on schadenfreude by directly examining the psychological explanation of this phenomenon Some time ago, Nietzsche (1887/ 1967) suggested that it is the dysphoria at being outshone by a second party that leads people to feel schadenfreude at the misfortune of a third party However, as outlined above, no previous studies of schadenfreude have established the self as directly defeated (or otherwise outshone) by a second party Thus, no previous studied have assessed the dysphoric feeling of dejection at such a defeat As such, it is unclear if dejection at defeat plays any role in schadenfreude toward third parties (as Nietzsche suggested) or toward second parties (as most others suggest) Demonstrating that it is the emotional pain of dejection at defeat by a second party that leads to schadenfreude toward a third party is important because it provides evidence that schadenfreude is not necessarily the result of being directly outshone by the target of schadenfreude If the emotional pain of being outshone plays a comparable role in schadenfreude toward second and third parties, it would suggest that schadenfreude has more to with the pain of being outshone than with the particular features of the party who is the target of schadenfreude In a further extension of previous research, we also examined the implications that schadenfreude at the failure of a third party has for self-evaluation Nietzsche (1887/1967) pointed out that schadenfreude at the failure of a third party offers no actual redress for being outshone by a second party Indeed, taking pleasure in a 661 third party’s failure does nothing to reduce the invidious discrepancy between the self and the second party Although schadenfreude is a positive feeling that may offer temporary emotional relief from being outshone, schadenfreude toward a third party cannot affirm a self-concept hurt by being outshone by a second party (Spears & Leach, 2004) Thus, schadenfreude toward a third party should not promote positive self-evaluation of the in-group Although the third party is brought down by its defeat this defeat does not raise the in-group relative to the third party Because schadenfreude at the failure of a third party does little to redress being outshone by a second party it is a more purely malicious feeling (Leach et al., 2003) As such, it may affirm malice toward the out-group, rather than affirm the self For this reason, we expect schadenfreude toward a third party to promote negative evaluation of this third party, rather than positive self-evaluation of the in-group Although we expect the basis of schadenfreude toward second and third parties to be similar, we expect the implications of these two examples of schadenfreude to differ Method This study was based upon Leach et al (2003, Study 2) Thus, we examined Dutch participant’s feelings about their own and other country’s results in the 2000 European Championship of football a few weeks after the highly publicized competition was completed The Dutch performed well, proceeding to the semifinal round where they were defeated by Italy in a very close match Italy then went on to fail against France Dutch rival Germany failed against England early in the tournament Thus, Germany constituted a third party for the Dutch, as Germany never competed directly against the in-group Germany’s early exit also precluded a view of Germany as superior to the in-group These actual events set the stage for Dutch dejection at their in-group’s defeat and thus schadenfreude toward either (second party) Italy’s or (third party) Germany’s subsequent failure in this domain Participants One hundred nineteen (Dutch) psychology students at the University of Amsterdam participated as part of a course requirement As preliminary analyses showed gender to have no independent or interactive effects, it is not discussed further.1 Design and Procedure Participants were seated at a desk and completed a number of different questionnaires, including ours We presented this study as an examination of reactions to news stories excerpted from the Internet Thus, participants were first asked a series of questions, such as how much they identified with their in-group, how interested they were in the domain of international football, and how Although there may be reason to suspect that men are more prone to schadenfreude in the domain of international sport, this seems likely to result from men tending to be more interested in this domain Because domain interest was treated as a covariate in this analysis, it is likely to have eliminated any effects of gender Gender is also unlikely to have had effects because nationality was the in-group membership made salient in this context (cf van Dijk et al., 2006) 662 LEACH AND SPEARS much they disliked various nationalities Participants were then presented with an ostensible excerpt from a news story which reported that the Dutch were recently defeated by Italy in a tightly contested match that was only resolved in “sudden death” overtime It was made clear that this defeat eliminated the in-group from the competition.2 To assess dejection, we asked participants how they felt about their in-group’s defeat Fifty-two percent of the participants reported having prior knowledge of their ingroup’s defeat However, preliminary analyses showed this to have no effect on schadenfreude, either in isolation or as a moderator of the effects reported below In the penultimate section of the study, participants were presented with another ostensible excerpt It reported either the (third party) German failure against England or the (second party) Italian failure against France Both texts made it clear that the out-group’s failure eliminated them from the competition Thus, we employed one 2-level manipulation of the out-group who was presented as failing To assess schadenfreude, we asked participants how they felt about the out-group’s failure In the last section of the study, participants were given a series of questions, including the measure of a dispositional tendency for schadenfreude described below Thus, the study was designed to prevent participants from expecting an opportunity for schadenfreude before it was presented “efficient,” “strong,” “hardworking,” “persistent,” “rude,” and “arrogant” to indicate evaluation of (third party) Germany Alternative explanations of schadenfreude As in Leach et al (2003, Study 2), we assessed several alternative explanations of intergroup schadenfreude to account for their effects In the first part of the study, we measured general interest in the domain of European Championship football (␣ ϭ 94), general identification with the in-group (␣ ϭ 92), and dislike of the four out-groups involved in the relevant matches These measures were taken from Leach et al (2003) In the last part of the study we assessed a dispositional tendency to feel schadenfreude with four items from Leach et al (2003; ␣ ϭ 83) Excluding these variables did not alter the pattern of results reported below, and none of these variables moderated the results Perceptions of the out-groups We asked how strong a team Italy (and Germany) was compared to the Netherlands after the schadenfreude opportunity This assessed the out-group’s comparative status in the domain of football The 7-point response scale ranged from Ϫ3 (weaker than the Netherlands) to ϩ (stronger than the Netherlands), which was converted to a 1–7 scale for analysis We also assessed the degree to which Italy (and Germany) was viewed as a rival to the in-group in football Responses were given on a scale ranging from (not at all) to (very much) Results and Discussion Measures Dejection at in-group defeat To assess feelings of dejection at the in-group’s defeat, we asked participants to what degree they felt “sadness,” “regret,” “disappointment,” and “self-pity” about it (based in Higgins, 1987; Lazarus, 1991; Ortony et al., 1988) These emotion words were embedded in a list of positive and negative feelings so as not to draw undue attention to our interest in dejection Responses were given on a 7-point scale that ranged from (not at all) to (very much) This scale was highly reliable (␣ ϭ 88) Schadenfreude In the penultimate section of the study, we presented participants with an opportunity for schadenfreude by describing the out-group’s failure We then asked participants to use a response scale that ranged from (not at all) to (very much) to indicate how much they felt a number of positive and negative emotions about the out-group’s failure The terms schadenfreude, happy, and three Dutch synonyms of satisfaction were used to measure schadenfreude (␣ ϭ 95) Leach et al (2003) and Leach and Spears (2008) have shown this scale to be unitary and valid Implications of schadenfreude We assessed the implications of schadenfreude by asking participants to indicate to what degree stereotypical (positive and negative) traits characterized their ingroup or the two out-groups We chose to use traits, rather than direct statements of group evaluation, because we thought a list of traits constituted a less obtrusive measure All traits were presented with a seven-point response scale, anchored by (not at all) and (very much) Based on Hamstra, Manstead, Spears, Fischer, and Doosje’s (1999) examination of Dutch self-stereotyping, we used the traits “sober/serious,” “economical,” “tolerant,” “cozy/ nice,” “complaining,” and “direct” to indicate participants’ evaluation of their in-group We used the traits “passionate,” “temperamental,” “good-natured,” “chaotic,” “friendly,” and “arrogant” to indicate evaluation of (second party) Italy We used the traits There were several differences in the way the two targets of schadenfreude were viewed Italy was perceived as a slightly stronger football team than the in-group, as participants mean response was above the scale midpoint (M ϭ 4.32, SD ϭ 1.00), t(117) ϭ 3.52, p ϭ 001 However, Germany was seen as slightly weaker than the in-group, as participants mean response was below the scale midpoint (M ϭ 3.73, SD ϭ 1.22), t(117) ϭ Ϫ2.42, p ϭ 02 Participants also reported disliking Germany (M ϭ 3.84, SD ϭ 1.37) more than Italy (M ϭ 3.33, SD ϭ 1.28), t(118) ϭ 4.38, p Ͻ 001 However, Italy (M ϭ 4.48, SD ϭ 1.54), t(61) ϭ 2.47, p ϭ 02, and Germany (M ϭ 4.55, SD ϭ 1.66), were both seen as moderate rivals for the in-group in football, t(117) ϭ 1.07, p ϭ 29 These results corroborate Leach et al (2003, Pilot Study 3) Explanations of Schadenfreude We used SPSS General Linear Modeling to examine the potential explanations of schadenfreude because it enables a straightforward analysis of both continuous and categorical predictors Thus, the continuous measures of dispositional schadenfreude, in-group identification, domain interest, dislike of Italy and Ger2 In an attempt to increase participants’ dejection at their defeat by Italy, we randomly assigned half of the participants to read a brief account of their in-group’s loss to Italy (including the final score and the bitter fact that the loss occurred in “sudden death” overtime) However, this manipulation had no main effect on the emotional pain of dejection, F (1, 115) ϭ 649, p ϭ 42, 2 ϭ 006, and did not interact with out-group target, F (1, 115) ϭ 278, p ϭ 60, 2 ϭ 003 Of the covariates, only interest in the domain had a reliable effect on dejection, F (1, 115) ϭ 61.42, p Ͻ 001, partial 2 ϭ 371 It is important to note that additional analyses showed the salience of the in-group’s defeat not to moderate any of the effects on schadenfreude reported here DEJECTION AND SCHADENFREUDE TOWARD OUT-GROUPS many, as well as the perceived football strength of Italy and Germany were included as alternative explanations of schadenfreude Dejection at in-group defeat was included as our central explanation In addition, our manipulation of the target of schadenfreude and its interactions with all of the possible explanations of schadenfreude were included in the statistical model The full model offered a robust and statistically reliable explanation of schadenfreude, F(1, 114) ϭ 7.91, p Ͻ 001, partial 2 ϭ 58 Alternative Explanations Of the alternative explanations of schadenfreude, only dislike of Germany had a statistically reliable main effect, F(1, 114) ϭ 10.18, p ϭ 002, partial 2 ϭ 10 Thus, schadenfreude was not well explained by dislike of Italy, F(1, 114) ϭ 1.47, p ϭ 23, partial 2 ϭ 02; perceived strength of Italy, F(1, 114) ϭ 292, p ϭ 59, partial 2 ϭ 0003; perceived strength of Germany, F(1, 114) ϭ 2.70, p ϭ 10, partial 2 ϭ 03; in-group identification, F(1, 114) ϭ 3.26, p ϭ 07, partial 2 ϭ 03; interest in the domain of competition, F(1, 114) ϭ 1.56, p ϭ 215, partial 2 ϭ 02; nor dispositional schadenfreude, F(1, 114) ϭ 835, p ϭ 84, partial 2 Ͻ 001 Consistent with four prior studies, these alternative explanations had little effect on schadenfreude when the in-group was directly outshone by another (Leach & Spears, 2008; Leach et al., 2003) The manipulation of the target of schadenfreude affected the degree to which the emotion was shown, F(1, 114) ϭ 12.92, p ϭ 001, partial 2 Ͻ 12 Greater schadenfreude was shown toward Germany (Madj ϭ 2.74, SE ϭ 145) than toward Italy (Madj ϭ 2.19, SE ϭ 145) This discrepancy was partly explained by the fact that dislike of Germany was a stronger predictor of schadenfreude toward Germany (b ϭ 468, SE ϭ 118, p Ͻ 001) than toward Italy (b ϭ 070, SE ϭ 107, p ϭ 52), F(1, 114) ϭ 6.64, p ϭ 01, partial 2 ϭ 07 In addition, dislike of Italy was a somewhat stronger predictor of schadenfreude toward Germany (b ϭ 285, SE ϭ 118, p ϭ 02), than toward Italy (b ϭ Ϫ.009, SE ϭ 138, p ϭ 95), F(1, 114) ϭ 2.81, p ϭ 10, partial 2 ϭ 03 This result already gives an indication that the in-group’s defeat by Italy was part of the basis for schadenfreude toward (third party) Germany The target of schadenfreude did not moderate any of the other alternative explanations, all p Ͼ 10 Dejection at Defeat As expected, dejection at the in-group’s defeat by Italy was the single greatest explanation of schadenfreude, F(1, 114) ϭ 53.38 p Ͻ 001, partial 2 ϭ 36 This effect was not moderated by the target of schadenfreude, F(1, 114) ϭ 545, p ϭ 46, partial 2 ϭ 006 Thus, dejection at the in-group’s defeat by Italy predicted schadenfreude toward Italy (b ϭ 533, SE ϭ 120, p Ͻ 001) as well as it predicted schadenfreude toward Germany (b ϭ 704, SE ϭ 122, p Ͻ 001) Implications of Schadenfreude To assess the degree to which schadenfreude was associated with a positive affirmation of the in-group, we examined its effect on each of the positive and negative traits ascribed to the in-group in a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Schadenfreude, 663 target of schadenfreude, and their interaction were treated as factors Participants’ schadenfreude toward Italy (b ϭ 333, SE ϭ 125, p Ͻ 01) but not toward Germany (b ϭ Ϫ.058, SE ϭ 124, p ϭ 64) predicted viewing their in-group as more “tolerant,” F(1, 114) ϭ 4.72, p ϭ 03, partial 2 ϭ 04 Participants’ schadenfreude toward Italy (b ϭ 269, SE ϭ 126, p ϭ 04) but not toward Germany (b ϭ Ϫ.062, SE ϭ 104, p ϭ 55) also predicted viewing their in-group as more “cozy/nice,” F(1, 114) ϭ 4.09, p ϭ 05, partial 2 ϭ 04 Thus, schadenfreude toward the second party who had defeated the in-group was associated with more positive self-evaluation of the in-group Schadenfreude toward the second party was unrelated to the less positive (i.e., “economical,” “sober/ serious”) or clearly negative (i.e., “complaining”) evaluation of the in-group And, schadenfreude toward (third party) Germany had no association with positive self-evaluation of the in-group (all p Ͼ 10) A MANOVA with schadenfreude as a factor and the six “Italian” traits as outcomes showed schadenfreude to have no effect on evaluation of this second party, F(6, 52) ϭ 818, p ϭ 56, partial 2 ϭ 09 Indeed, none of the univariate effects on the positive and negative traits were reliable, all p Ͼ 10, all 2 Ͻ 04 A parallel analysis on the six “German” traits produced a reliable multivariate effect on evaluation of this third party, F(6, 52) ϭ 3.11, p ϭ 01, partial 2 ϭ 26 At the univariate level, schadenfreude was associated with greater negative evaluation of Germany as “persistent” (b ϭ 178, SE ϭ 077, p Ͻ 02), “rude” (b ϭ 316, SE ϭ 111, p ϭ 006), and “arrogant” (b ϭ 313, SE ϭ 112, p ϭ 007) In contrast, schadenfreude was not reliably related to the ascription of positive traits to Germany (i.e., efficient, strong, hardworking) Conclusion Nearly all previous research of schadenfreude has been conducted at the interpersonal level of analysis and has focused on a second party’s general success as the sole explanation of schadenfreude at their subsequent misfortune However, this approach does not accord with the classic view of schadenfreude, offered by Nietzsche (1887/1967), Heider (1958), and numerous other philosophers and theorists (for a review, see Schoeck, 1969) The classic view suggests that it is the dysphoria at being outshone by a second party of similar status that is the most potent explanation of schadenfreude at this party’s subsequent misfortune As most previous research has simply exposed individuals to a generally successful party (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002; Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk et al., 2006), the role of being outshone in schadenfreude has not been examined directly This may be why previous findings are inconsistent, with some evidence that schadenfreude is directed at generally successful parties (e.g., Smith et al., 1996) and some evidence that it is not (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002) Similarly, there is some evidence that schadenfreude is based in envy of generally successful second parties (e.g., Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk et al., 2006) and some evidence that it is not (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Leach & Spears, 2008) To offer a more direct assessment of the classic view of schadenfreude, we departed from previous research to clearly establish participants’ in-group as being outshone in a direct defeat by a second party Of importance, participant’s dislike of this second party, and a relevant third party, as well as their dejection 664 LEACH AND SPEARS about being defeated were assessed before participants had any reason to suspect that they would be presented with the second or third party’s failures in the same domain Although the present study also differs from most previous work by focusing on schadenfreude between groups, rather than between individuals, it is the theoretical and methodological departures that most distinguish the present work from that previous (Spears & Leach, 2004) Consistent with classic theory, dejection at the in-group’s defeat by a second party promoted schadenfreude toward this out-group when this second party failed in further competition Of importance, dejection at defeat had a larger effect on schadenfreude than a host of other alternative explanations, including dislike of the second party, interest in the domain of competition, in-group identification, and a dispositional tendency for schadenfreud (for a general discussion, see Iyer & Leach, 2008) The present study also offered support for the classic view of schadenfreude toward second parties by showing that this emotion was associated with positive evaluation of the in-group As far as we are aware, this is the first empirical evidence for the notion that schadenfreude at the failure of a (second) party who has outshone the self is associated with a positive affirmation of the (group-level) self That, preexisting identification with the in-group played little role in schadenfreude suggests that it was the episodic experience of schadenfreude that led to greater positive evaluation of the in-group (for a general discussion, see Iyer & Leach, 2008) However, a firm test of causality requires a different method than that employed here In addition to providing evidence for the classic view of schadenfreude toward second parties, the present study also extended this model in a novel way Based in Nietzsche (1887/1967), we suggested that dejection at being outshone can also promote schadenfreude toward a third party, who has not outshone the self Consistent with this, it was individual’s dejection at their ingroup’s defeat by the second party that best explained schadenfreude toward the third party Interesting to note, this “displacement” of feelings regarding the victorious second party onto the unsuspecting third party also applied to dislike Although dislike of the second party played no role in schadenfreude toward them, dislike of the second party led to greater schadenfreude toward the third party Thus, this study provided evidence of at least two different ways in which negative feelings about being outshone by a second party can lead to schadenfreude toward a third party who did not outshine the self In two recent studies, Leach and Spears (2008) have shown that such effects go beyond dislike of a particular second party or dejection at a single defeat They assessed the less circumscribed emotional pain individuals felt when they were led to believe that their university had been defeated by numerous other universities in an academic competition This “pain of inferiority” is, in essence, the accumulation of repeated dejection at single defeats Like dejection at defeat here, Leach and Spears (2008) found the pain of domain inferiority to be a potent predictor of schadenfreude toward a previously successful third party who failed And, like in the present study, this emotional explanation dwarfed alternative explanations such as dislike of the third party, interest in the domain of competition, and the perceived illegitimacy Of importance, in the present study, schadenfreude toward the third party was not associated with positive affirmation of the self Indeed, as Nietzsche pointed out, a third party’s failure may be pleasing despite the fact that it does nothing to reduce the invidious distinction established by the second party outshining the self (see also Leach & Spears, 2008) Thus, schadenfreude toward the third party served only to promote negative evaluation of the third party This is consistent with the view that schadenfreude toward third parties is more malicious than that toward second parties (Leach et al., 2003) It is the more purely malicious quality of schadenfreude toward third parties that makes it an insidious prejudice with the potential to escalate into more direct derogation and mistreatment (Spears & Leach, 2004) It is important to note that our approach is consistent with contemporary models of individual (see Higgins, 1987; Tesser, 1988) and group-level (see Breakwell, 1986; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) self-evaluation, which emphasize the degree to which specific threats to positive self-evaluation demand active coping By translating the dysphoria of dejection at defeat into the euphoria of schadenfreude at another party’s failure, people appear to be using schadenfreude to provide themselves emotional relief (see Nietzsche, 1887/1967) That dejection at defeat can be translated into schadenfreude toward a third party who played no role in the defeat shows the self-serving nature of schadenfreude This malicious pleasure at another’s misfortune poses a serious threat to social relations, whether interpersonal or intergroup References Allport, G W (1979) The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary edition, originally published 1954) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Bettencourt, B A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D L (2001) Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520 –542 Branscombe, N R., & Wann, D L (1994) Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641– 658 Breakwell, G M (1986) Coping with threatened identities London: Methuen Duckitt, J (1992) The social psychology of prejudice New York: Praeger Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B (Eds.) (1999) Social identity: Context, commitment, content Oxford: Blackwell 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 Hamstra, I J., Manstead, A S R., Spears, R., Fischer, A H., & Doosje, B J (1999, June) Content and strength of national identity: The case of Dutch identity in the context of a multicultural society Poster presented at the 24th annual meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Oxford, England Hareli, S., & Weiner, B (2002) Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another’s misfortune Motivation and Emotion, 26, 257–277 Heider, F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations New York: J Wiley Higgins, E T (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect Psychological Review, 94, 319 –340 Iyer, A., & Leach, C W (2008) Emotion in inter-group relations European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 86 –125 Lazarus, R S (1991) Emotion and adaptation New York: Oxford University Press Leach, C W., & Spears, R (2008) “A vengefulness of the impotent”: The pain of in-group inferiority and schadenfreude toward successful outgroups Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1383–1396 Leach, C W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N R., & Doosje, B (2003) DEJECTION AND SCHADENFREUDE TOWARD OUT-GROUPS Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 932–943 Nietzsche, F (1967) On the genealogy of morals (W Kaufmann & R J Hollingdale, Trans.) New York: Random House (Original work published 1887) Ortony, A., Clore, G L., & Collins, A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions New York: Cambridge University Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M (1998) Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40 – 62 Schoeck, H (1969) Envy: A theory of social behavior New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World Smith, H J., & Kessler, T (2004) Group-based emotions and intergroup behavior: The case of relative deprivation In L Z Tiedens & C W Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp 292–313) New York: Cambridge University Press Smith, R H (2000) Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons In J Suls & L Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison theory and research (pp 173– 200) New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press Publishers Smith, R H., Turner, T J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C W., Urch, V., & Weston, C (1996) Envy and schadenfreude Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 158 –168 665 Spears, R., & Leach, C W (2004) Intergroup schadenfreude: Conditions and consequences In L Z Tiedens & C W Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp 336 –355) New York: Cambridge University Press Tajfel, H., & Turner, J C (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict In W G Austin & S Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp 33– 47) Monterey: CA: Brooks/Cole Tesser, A (1988) Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 21, pp 181–227) San Diego: Academic Press van Dijk, W W., Ouwerkerk, J W., Goslinga, S., & Nieweg, M (2005) Deservingness and schadenfreude Cognition and Emotion, 19, 933– 939 van Dijk, W W., Ouwerkerk, J W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M (2006) When people fall form grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude Emotion, 6, 156 –160 Wills, T A (1981) Downward comparison principles in social psychology Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271 Received February 11, 2008 Revision received April 28, 2009 Accepted May 22, 2009 Ⅲ New Editors Appointed, 2011–2016 The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association announces the appointment of new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2011 As of January 1, 2010, manuscripts should be directed as follows: ● Developmental Psychology (http://www.apa.org/journals/dev), Jacquelynne S Eccles, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ● Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (http://www.apa.org/journals/ccp), Arthur M Nezu, PhD, Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19102 ● Psychological Review (http://www.apa.org/journals/rev), John R Anderson, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2010, manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the new editors via the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website listed above with each journal title) Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of the 2010 volumes uncertain Current editors, Cynthia Garcı´a Coll, PhD, Annette M La Greca, PhD, and Keith Rayner, PhD, will receive and consider new manuscripts through December 31, 2009 Should 2010 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will be redirected to the new editors for consideration in 2011 volumes ... of dejection at defeat Third, we examine the provocative idea that dejection at defeat by a second party can also lead to schadenfreude toward a third party who did not defeat the in-group Thus,... ranging from (not at all) to (very much) Results and Discussion Measures Dejection at in-group defeat To assess feelings of dejection at the in-group? ??s defeat, we asked participants to what degree they... accumulation of repeated dejection at single defeats Like dejection at defeat here, Leach and Spears (2008) found the pain of domain inferiority to be a potent predictor of schadenfreude toward