A vengefulness of the impotent” the pain of in group inferiority and schadenfreude toward successful out groups

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, Vol 95, No 6, 1383–1396 Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012629 “A Vengefulness of the Impotent”: The Pain of In-Group Inferiority and Schadenfreude Toward Successful Out-Groups Colin Wayne Leach Russell Spears University of Sussex Cardiff University and University of Amsterdam Nietzsche (1887/1967) suggested that the emotional pain individuals feel about their in-group’s inferiority leads them to feel the pleasure of schadenfreude when a successful out-group fails To test this idea, studies examined a fictitious competition between real universities Individuals’ pain about their in-group’s inferiority explained schadenfreude at the failure of a successful out-group better than dislike of the out-group, interest in the domain of competition, illegitimacy of the out-group’s success, and illegitimacy of the in-group’s inferiority In addition, emotions regarding the out-group’s success (i.e., envy, dislike-based anger, and illegitimacy-based anger) were weaker explanations of schadenfreude than the pain of in-group inferiority and anger based in this pain (which Nietzsche referred to as ressentiment) Thus, schadenfreude has more to with the inferiority of the self than with the success of others As well as providing evidence for a specific form of prejudice grounded in group-based emotions, this research also revives displacement explanations of prejudice toward 3rd parties Keywords: schadenfreude, emotion, intergroup relations, social identity theory, social status How one’s in-group compares with out-groups is an important determinant of one’s psychological experience For example, an in-group’s comparative inferiority can pose a serious threat to one’s self-worth (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), producing painful emotions such as shame and frustration (for reviews, see Scheff, 1994; Tiedens & Leach, 2004) In-group inferiority can lead individuals to derogate, devalue, or compete against superior out-groups in an attempt to reverse their fortunes (Spears, Jetten, & Doosje, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Walker & Smith, 2002) However, where there is objective evidence of one’s in-group being inferior, this social reality can constrain malevolence toward and competition with the superior out-group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Spears et al., 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Indeed, in a meta-analytic review, Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, and Hume (2001) found that ingroups that were objectively inferior to an out-group in a particular domain tended not to devalue the out-group in this domain Because it is difficult for inferior in-groups to be malevolent toward comparatively superior out-groups, it has long been suggested that in-group inferiority leads to “displaced” malevolence toward third parties (e.g., Fromm, 1941; for reviews, see Allport, 1954/1979; Wills, 1981) This perspective is consistent with the more general view, advocated by Allport, among others, that the self’s subjective experience is an important basis of malevolence toward out-groups (see Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) For example, prejudice is associated with individuals’ subjective experience of deprivation relative to other individuals (for a review, see Walker & Smith, 2002) and the threat of individual mortality (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1990) Although the idea of displacement is central to popular notions of frustration–aggression and “poor White racism” in prejudice, displacement has rarely been observed in research on intergroup malevolence (see Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1998; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) Partly in response to this lack of evidence, Leach, Spears, Branscombe, and Doosje (2003) identified schadenfreude (i.e., pleasure at the misfortune that happenstance causes another party) as a passive form of intergroup malevolence that can result from in-group inferiority In two studies, they showed that objective in-group inferiority led individuals to feel schadenfreude when an otherwise successful third-party out-group failed in the domain of the in-group’s inferiority We extend this research by proposing that objective in-group inferiority leads to schadenfreude toward third parties mainly because of the subjective experience of painful emotions associated with the psychological threat of in-group inferiority (e.g., shame and frustration) Thus, building on the notion of intergroup emotion (E R Smith, 1993), we conceptualize intergroup schadenfreude as an unfolding emotional episode whereby unpleasant emotions about the self lead to a pleasant emotion about another party This mechanism by which ingroups address their painful inferiority by taking pleasure in an out-group’s failure revives the classic view of prejudice as a result of displaced feelings about the self In contrast to our emphasis of the pain of in-group inferiority, most previous schadenfreude research has emphasized other-focused explanations For example, previous work has argued that emotional Colin Wayne Leach, Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, England; Russell Spears, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, and Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands This research was supported by a visiting scholar grant to Colin Wayne Leach from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek We thank Nesrien Abu-Ghazaleh and Roos Knap for their research assistance We thank Patricia M Rodriguez Mosquera, Richard H Smith, Ngaire Donaghue, the University of Amsterdam intergroup lab, and the Leiden University social and organizational psychology research group Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Colin Wayne Leach, Department of Psychology, Pevensey Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, England E-mail: c.w.leach@sussex.ac.uk 1383 LEACH AND SPEARS 1384 reactions to another party’s success, such as envy (e.g., R H Smith et al., 1996), illegitimacy-based anger (Feather & Sherman, 2002), and dislike-based anger (Hareli & Weiner, 2002) lead to schadenfreude when this party subsequently fails These other-focused explanations of schadenfreude are consistent with a perspective that views an out-group’s characteristics (e.g., its status and how it is stereotyped) as the main explanations of prejudice toward them Given that schadenfreude may result from either self- or otherfocused explanations, we offer a comprehensive model that addresses both Because of the importance of the self in prejudice, we expect the pain of in-group inferiority to best explain schadenfreude However, envy, illegitimacy, and illegitimacy-based anger may also play a role Thus, in two studies, we compared the power of self- and other-focused explanations of schadenfreude by leading students to believe that their in-group was inferior in an intergroup competition and that an out-group successful in the competition ultimately failed Our emphasis on the pain of in-group inferiority as a selffocused explanation of schadenfreude follows from Nietzsche’s (1887/1967, p 37) discussion of the “vengefulness of the impotent.” Consistent with contemporary research (Bettencourt et al., 2001; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Spears et al., 2001), he argued that an in-group’s inferiority to an out-group rendered it impotent to compete against this out-group Also consistent with research at the individual level (e.g., R H Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992) and the group level (Scheff, 1994; Walker & Smith, 2002), Nietzsche argued that (objective) inferiority fuels the (subjective) pain of shame and frustration about one’s threatened self-worth He thought the pain of inferiority so aversive that individuals were sure to take advantage of easy opportunities to feel more positively; the pleasure of schadenfreude at the failure of third parties In-group Domain Inferiority Pathways Dislike-based anger Illegitimacy-based anger Pain of In-group Inferiority presents one such opportunity Thus, Nietzsche’s approach to schadenfreude presaged the psychodynamic view of prejudice as the displacement of painful feelings about the self, such as ingroup inferiority Leach et al (2003) were the first to empirically confirm the idea that objective in-group inferiority leads to schadenfreude toward third parties who played no role in establishing this inferiority However, Leach et al did not examine the subjective experience of the pain of in-group inferiority as an explanation of this effect Therefore, in both of the present studies, we led students to believe that their (university) in-group was inferior in a domain as a result of repeated failure against other universities We then assessed the emotional pain felt about the in-group’s inferiority in this domain We expected this group-based emotion to be an important explanation of schadenfreude toward a successful third party who was subsequently presented as failing in the same domain as the in-group’s inferiority This route to schadenfreude is shown in the black path of the emotional episode illustrated in Figure We have emphasized individuals’ pain about their in-group’s inferiority in a domain as an explanation of schadenfreude Although this inferiority is established independently of the success of the eventual target of schadenfreude, encountering a successful out-group can also imply the in-group’s comparative inferiority (R H Smith, 1991; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Based in part on social comparison theory, R H Smith et al (1996) suggested that the pain of the inferiority implied by another’s success is an important explanation of schadenfreude However, evidence for this is lacking, mainly because the pain of implied inferiority has been conflated with other-focused explanations of schadenfreude, such as envy and anger about illegitimate success (e.g., R H Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, Nieweg, & Gallucci, 2006; for discussions, see Leach, 2008; Spears & Leach, 2004) To Out-group Success Out-group Failure Envy: Out-group Success Pain of Inferiority Implied Dislike: Out-group Anger: Out-group Success Schadenfreude: Out-group Failure Pain of Inferiority Domain Illegitimacy: Out-group Success Figure Model of emotion explanations of schadenfreude toward a successful out-group PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE clarify this issue, we propose a specific route by which the pain of inferiority implied by another’s success leads to schadenfreude through a particular type of anger that Nietzsche (1887/1967) called ressentiment Nietzsche (1887/1967) argued that the pain individuals feel about their in-group’s inferiority in a domain leads them to interpret a third party’s success as implying their comparative inferiority to this out-group Like the broader domain inferiority that feeds it, the inferiority implied by an out-group’s success should be emotionally painful Nietzsche argued that those suffering implied inferiority “externalized” their pain in the form of anger at the successful: ressentiment In this way, ressentiment uses anger at those who are successful to hide its true source—the pain of implied inferiority Although there have been no direct examinations of ressentiment, some contemporary work is consistent with Nietzsche’s thinking Scheff (1994) used archival evidence to suggest that in-groups who suffer inferiority-based shame are prone to malicious anger toward out-groups In her clinical work with individuals, Lewis (1971) observed that shame could be redirected away from the self into anger at others (see also R H Smith et al., 1994; Tangney et al., 1992) In a recent review, McDonald and Leary (2005) confirmed that being devalued or rejected by others is associated with indirect aggression in interpersonal relations (see also Wills, 1981) Thus, there is good reason to expect that the pain of inferiority implied by an outgroup’s success can lead to the externalized anger of ressentiment and, in turn, the malevolence of schadenfreude In the current context, ressentiment toward a successful third party should mediate the association between the pain of implied in-group inferiority and schadenfreude toward the third party Thus, we expect the pain of implied inferiority to have no direct effect on schadenfreude independent of the anger through which it is externalized (i.e., ressentiment) This pathway is shown in solid lines in Figure Although most previous approaches to schadenfreude have aimed to offer general explanations of the emotion, most have focused exclusively on schadenfreude at the interpersonal level There is general agreement in this work that schadenfreude is felt in response to the misfortune of a party who is successful in a domain of some relevance to the self (Spears & Leach, 2004) In addition, most previous theory has argued that schadenfreude is best explained by individuals’ reactions to another party’s success, such as dislike, illegitimacy of the other party’s success, envy, and anger However, there is great disagreement about which of these other-focused explanations is most important Studies at both the interpersonal (R.H Smith et al., 1996) and the intergroup (Leach et al., 2003) levels have shown preexisting dislike to be a modest explanation of schadenfreude toward the disliked party Thus, both of the present studies assessed preexisting dislike of an out-group and then subsequently presented this party as suffering a failure In addition, Study measured the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s success and Study manipulated the procedural illegitimacy of the out-group’s success Since antiquity, it has been argued that the illegitimacy of another party’s success leads to schadenfreude when this party suffers a misfortune (R H Smith, 1991) Nevertheless, we expect the pain of in-group inferiority to better explain schadenfreude than dislike of the out-group or the illegitimacy of its success Although early research on schadenfreude suggested envy as an important explanation (R H Smith et al., 1996), subsequent work 1385 that has differentiated envy from perceived injustice and anger offered mixed evidence of an envy–schadenfreude link (Feather & Sherman, 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, Nieweg, and Gallucci, 2006) Because variation in the way envy has been conceptualized and measured may account for this inconsistency, we measured envy as coveting another party’s success and distinguished it from all of the other possible explanations of schadenfreude that have been included within the envy construct (i.e., self’s inferiority implied by the other’s success, perceived illegitimacy of inferiority, perceived illegitimacy of other party’s success, and anger; for a discussion, see Leach, 2008) When the pain of inferiority is distinguished from envy, we expect the former to be a much more potent explanation of schadenfreude than the latter Numerous authors have argued that anger at successful parties can explain schadenfreude at their subsequent failure However, there are competing views regarding the basis of this anger (for a discussion, see Leach, 2008) Dislike of a successful party (Hareli & Weiner, 2002) and the illegitimacy of their success (Feather & Sherman, 2002) have both been suggested as bases of anger that lead to schadenfreude We build on Hareli and Weiner (2002) by examining the explanatory process they implied: preexisting dislike of out-group anger at out-group’s success schadenfreude In addition, we examine the pathway implied by Feather and Sherman (2002): out-group’s illegitimate success anger at out-group’s success schadenfreude As outlined above, we expect the two routes of the pain of in-group inferiority to provide more potent explanations of schadenfreude toward third parties than the other-focused explanations suggested in the literature As emotional reactions to another party’s success are not based in the serious threat to the self that is posed by in-group inferiority, we expect the explanatory power of these other-focused explanations of schadenfreude to be relatively modest We also expect the two routes of the pain of in-group inferiority to explain schadenfreude better than the selffocused explanation of interest in the domain of competition (examined in Leach et al., 2003) To test these ideas, both studies led students to believe that their senior peers were engaged in an interuniversity competition This allowed us to present false feedback of inferior in-group performance against a pool of out-groups in this domain The competition also allowed us to establish independently a relevant outgroup as successful in the domain This out-group was presented as successful through their repeated victories against a pool of universities different from those who competed against the in-group However, the third party out-group was presented as ultimately failing in the final of the competition This gave in-group members an opportunity for schadenfreude toward a successful out-group who played no role in establishing the in-group’s inferiority Study Creating a fictitious competition between two pools of universities in the Netherlands allowed us to establish in-group inferiority independent of third party out-group success in the same domain We took advantage of this to manipulate the causal antecedents of schadenfreude In a baseline condition, we established in-group inferiority and then out-group success and assessed related feelings before the schadenfreude opportunity presented by LEACH AND SPEARS 1386 the out-group’s eventual failure Thus, both self- and other-focused explanations could cause schadenfreude We expected the selffocused explanations to have the biggest effects on schadenfreude, supporting our argument that schadenfreude is based mainly in concern for the self, rather than the other In a second condition, we established out-group success and assessed related feelings and perceptions (i.e., dislike, perceived illegitimacy of the success, envy, illegitimacy-based anger, and dislikebased anger) before the schadenfreude opportunity Thus, this condition examined the independent effects of the other-focused explanations of schadenfreude Although this condition advantaged these other-focused explanations, we expected them to have only modest effects In contrast, we expected the pain of the inferiority implied by the out-group’s success and its attendant anger (i.e., the ressentiment route) to have a robust effect on schadenfreude We also used the second condition to rule out the possibility that schadenfreude and the pain of domain inferiority have a recursive relationship If the pain of domain inferiority and schadenfreude are recursively related, greater schadenfreude at an out-group’s failure should lead to greater pain about in-group domain inferiority in the condition in which this causal order is possible However, evidence of a recursive relationship would undermine our view that the pain of domain inferiority is an important cause of schadenfreude, as either feeling could lead to the other Thus, we expect a nonrecursive relation such that the pain of domain inferiority leads to schadenfreude, but not vice versa Method Participants and Procedure Participants were 102 psychology students at the University of Amsterdam (34 men and 68 women) They were told that we were interested in their evaluation of an interuniversity quiz that had been in existence for a number of years, but had never been publicized We told participants that a television station was now considering making the annual competition into a regular program, but wanted to know if the target audience of students was sufficiently interested Thus, we presented our study as market research After explaining the ostensible purpose of the research, we presented participants with a 1-page description of the interuniversity quiz competition called “IQ.” They were told that universities throughout the country competed each year in two pools of seven teams each At the end of each year, the winner of each pool met in a final match to determine the national champion The two-pool system enabled us to independently establish the inferiority of the in-group (because of very poor performance in Pool A) and the success of the out-group (because of very good performance in Pool B) In-Group Inferiority Participants were presented with a table that gave their ingroup’s performance in Pool A It showed the participant’s university to have lost to Open, Delft, Leiden, Groningen, and Tilburg Universities, but to have won against Eindhoven Because they were reported to have lost five of the six matches they played, the in-group was objectively inferior in the domain This also made it clear that the in-group’s inferiority in their pool prevented them from competing in the final against the top team in Pool B Out-Group Success A second table gave the out-group’s performance in Pool B The out-group was presented as successful in the domain by virtue of the fact that they won five of the six matches they played in their pool Thus, the VU University Amsterdam lost against Utrecht, but won against Maastricht, Wageningen, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, and Twente Universities It was then explained that the VU University’s success put them in the final against the winner of Pool A, the University of Groningen Thus, participants were in the role of passively observing the out-group fail in the final of a competition As the in-group had already been eliminated from the competition, there could be no material gain from the outcome of the final match Order Manipulation In one experimental condition, we first established the ingroup’s domain inferiority and assessed its perceived illegitimacy and the pain felt about it In a second step, we established the third-party out-group as successful and assessed the perceived illegitimacy and envy of this success, anger about this success, and pain of the inferiority implied by the out-group’s success In a third step, we gave participants an opportunity for schadenfreude by having the third party out-group fail In this condition, both selfand other-focused explanations could cause schadenfreude In the second condition, however, the out-group’s success was established first and its perceived illegitimacy and envy, anger, and the pain of the inferiority implied by the out-group’s success were assessed before the schadenfreude opportunity Only after this schadenfreude opportunity was the in-group’s domain inferiority established and the pain about it assessed Thus, in this condition, the pain of domain inferiority could not cause schadenfreude However, schadenfreude could cause the pain of domain inferiority Measures Group performance To check the effectiveness of the group performance information, we assessed the degree to which each group was perceived as “strong,” “successful,” having “the needed capabilities,” “unlikely to be successful” (reversed), and likely to lose in the future (reversed) These items were presented after the appropriate information regarding each group and accompanied by Likert-type scales that ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) This measure of perceived performance proved internally consistent regarding the in-group (␣ ϭ 78) and the out-group (␣ ϭ 82) Perceived illegitimacy of in-group inferiority Four items assessed the perceived illegitimacy of the in-group’s performance immediately after the manipulation check items (␣ ϭ 56) Participants were asked whether the in-group’s performance was “fair” (reversed), “unfair,” “illegitimate,” and “acceptable” (reversed) using a Likert-type scale that ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) Pain of domain inferiority Immediately after the information establishing the in-group’s inferiority in their pool of the competition, participants were asked the degree to which they felt “in- PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE ferior,” “frustrated,” “threatened,” and “ashamed” (␣ ϭ 80) These emotion labels suggest subjective pain about inferiority (Nietzsche, 1887/1967; Scheff, 1994; R H Smith, 1991) Pain of implied inferiority To assess the pain individuals felt about the inferiority implied by the out-group’s success, we asked how much they felt “inferior,” “threatened,” “frustrated,” and “ashamed” immediately after the information establishing the outgroup’s success in their pool of the competition (␣ ϭ 83) Domain interest We assessed interest in the domain of competition just after our general description thereof Thus, we presented participants with Likert-type response scales ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) and asked whether they “might like to participate” and whether the competition “would make a nice addition to TV,” “seems exciting,” “seems dull” (reversed), and “would be nice to see on TV” (␣ ϭ 83) Leach et al (2003) suggested that domain interest may be an alternative self-focused explanation of schadenfreude However, we expected it to have little effect where the pain of domain inferiority is also assessed Dislike We assessed dislike of the target of schadenfreude (Free University) and dislike of the out-group who defeated this target (University of Groningen), as in Leach et al (2003) Perceived illegitimacy of out-group success Four items assessed the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s performance immediately after the manipulation check regarding this performance (␣ ϭ 77) Participants were asked whether the out-group’s performance was “fair” (reversed), “unfair,” “illegitimate,” and “acceptable” (reversed) using a Likert-type scale that ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) Envy On the basis of Hareli and Weiner (2002) and Feather and Sherman (2002), we included two items that operationalized envy as coveting the out-group’s success: “I would like us to be like the Free University team” and “I want us to have what the Free 1387 University team has” (␣ ϭ 85) Responses were given on a scale ranging from (not at all) to (very much) Anger On the basis of R H Smith et al (1996), Feather and Sherman (2002), and Hareli and Weiner (2002), we asked participants to what degree they felt “angry,” “irritated,” and “hostile” (␣ ϭ 91) Responses were given on a scale ranging from (not at all) to (very much) Schadenfreude In a separate section of the study, participants were told that the out-group’s success in their pool enabled them to proceed to the competition final, where they failed against the University of Groningen This provided the opportunity for schadenfreude As in Leach et al (2003, Study 2), happy, three synonyms of satisfied, and the Dutch word for schadenfreude (i.e., leedvermaak) were used to measure schadenfreude (␣ ϭ 92) Responses were given on a scale ranging from (not at all) to (very much) Results We first examined the effectiveness of our manipulation of each group’s performance in the competition Participants viewed their in-group as performing somewhat poorly (M ϭ 3.99, SD ϭ 0.88), but perceived the out-group as performing well (M ϭ 5.47, SD ϭ 0.69), t(101) ϭ 21.74, p Ͻ 001 Thus, we effectively established in-group domain inferiority and out-group success Participants tended to somewhat disagree that their in-group’s inferiority was illegitimate and to moderately disagree that the out-group’s success was illegitimate (see Table 1) However, there was sufficient variance in these two measures of perceived illegitimacy to potentially predict schadenfreude Gender was not examined in the analyses reported here, as in prior analyses gender never produced any main or interaction Table Means and Intercorrelations of Schadenfreude and Its Potential Explanations: Study Order and measure In-group inferiority first Dislike out-groupa Domain interesta Illegitimacy in-groupa Illegitimacy out-groupa Pain of inferiorityb Pain of implied inferiorityb Envyb Angerb Schadenfreudeb Out-group success first Dislike out-group Domain interest Illegitimacy in-group Illegitimacy out-group Pain of inferiority Pain of implied inferiority Envy Anger Schadenfreude a ‫ء‬ M (SD) 3.37 (1.23) 4.50 (1.15) 3.50 (0.64) 2.66 (0.83) 2.23 (1.17) 2.05 (1.12) 2.76 (1.70) 2.10 (1.41) 2.35 (1.41) — 04 — 14 18 — 13 Ϫ.11 36‫ء‬ — Ϫ.08 20 22 31‫ء‬ — Ϫ.01 25 29‫ء‬ 38‫ء‬ 73‫ء‬ — Ϫ.13 41‫ء‬ Ϫ.11 Ϫ.07 43‫ء‬ 38‫ء‬ — 01 12 24 45‫ء‬ 70‫ء‬ 87‫ء‬ 26 — 04 28‫ء‬ 30‫ء‬ 29‫ء‬ 74‫ء‬ 70‫ء‬ 37‫ء‬ 70‫ء‬ — 3.39 (1.28) 4.70 (1.32) 3.33 (0.77) 2.59 (0.71) 2.17 (1.05) 2.09 (1.13) 3.31 (1.45) 1.99 (1.10) 2.42 (1.02) — Ϫ.17 — 07 02 — 04 Ϫ.28 35‫ء‬ — 01 25 24 02 — Ϫ.20 28 14 Ϫ.04 22 17 — 14 07 25 22 71‫ء‬ 76‫ء‬ 20 — 04 11 10 20 50‫ء‬ 62‫ء‬ 14 75‫ء‬ — Response scale ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) p Ͻ 05 b 02 24 18 11 73‫ء‬ — Response scale ranged from (not at all) to (very much) LEACH AND SPEARS 1388 effects.1 As a first step, we performed an analysis of covariance to be sure that the pain of domain inferiority’s moderate-sized effect on schadenfreude was not moderated by the perceived illegitimacy of in-group inferiority or the perceived illegitimacy of out-group success This was indeed the case.2 Conceptual Model To examine the full set of self- and other-focused explanations identified in our conceptual model, we used EQS 6.1 to estimate covariance structure models in each experimental condition Table reports the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the variables in each experimental condition Figure reports the standardized solution in the condition in which the in-group’s inferiority and the out-group’s success were established before the schadenfreude opportunity This model accounted for 62% of the variance in schadenfreude That the model fit the data well was also shown in the nonreliable ␹2(19, N ϭ 51) ϭ 24.83, p ϭ 17 In addition, a variety of fit (non-normed fit index [NNFI] ϭ 920, comparative fit index [CFI] ϭ 972, incremental fit index [IFI] ϭ 976) and residual (standardized rootmean-square residual [SRMR] ϭ 085, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] ϭ 078) indices showed good model fit (for a review, see Hu & Bentler, 1999) As hypothesized, the pain of domain inferiority was a highly reliable, moderate-sized explanation of schadenfreude The perceived illegitimacy of the in-group’s domain inferiority was not associated with the pain felt about it Also as expected, the pain of domain inferiority was strongly linked to the pain of implied inferiority In support of the ressentiment pathway, the pain of implied inferiority had an indirect effect on schadenfreude through anger at the out-group’s success (i.e., the total indirect effect, the product of the two involved paths, was 252) Consistent with full mediation, the model fit well without estimating a direct path between the pain of implied inferiority and schadenfreude Indeed, the LaGrange multiplier modification index showed that adding this path would not improve model fit ( p Ͼ 10) None of the other-focused explanations of schadenfreude produced notable effects Thus, envy (direct effect ϭ 09), dislikebased anger (indirect effect ϭ 004), and illegitimacy-based anger (indirect effect ϭ 049) had relatively small effects on schadenfreude compared with that of the pain of domain (or implied) in-group inferiority That the model fit well without specifying direct paths to schadenfreude from dislike of the out-group or perceived illegitimacy of their success suggests that these otherfocused explanations were unimportant Indeed, LaGrange multiplier modification indices showed that adding these paths would not improve model fit (both ps Ͼ 05) Figure reports the standardized solution for the condition in which only the out-group’s success was established before the schadenfreude opportunity This model accounted for 57% of the variance in schadenfreude That the model fit the data well was also shown in the nonreliable ␹2(19, N ϭ 51) ϭ 21.00, p ϭ 34 In addition, a variety of fit (NNFI ϭ 948, CFI ϭ 982, IFI ϭ 986) and residual (SRMR ϭ 090, RMSEA ϭ 047) indices showed good model fit Although the other-focused explanations were advantaged in this experimental condition, their effects were similar to the baseline condition Thus, envy, dislike-based anger (.090), and illegitimacy-based anger (.105) had small, nonreliable effects In contrast, the ressentiment pathway was a potent explanation of schadenfreude (indirect effect ϭ 563) Consistent with full mediation, the model fit well without estimating a direct path between the pain of implied inferiority and schadenfreude Indeed, the LaGrange multiplier modification index showed that adding this path would not improve model fit ( p Ͼ 10) Discussion When the in-group’s inferiority in a domain was established before an opportunity for schadenfreude, the pain of this inferiority was a potent cause of schadenfreude toward a successful thirdparty out-group As this out-group played no role in establishing the in-group’s inferiority, schadenfreude at their failure seems especially malicious and prejudiced As expected, the pain of domain of inferiority had a much bigger effect on schadenfreude than other self-focused explanations, like interest in the domain of competition and the perceived illegitimacy of the in-group’s domain inferiority In addition, other-focused explanations, such as preexisting dislike of the third party and victorious out-groups had little effect on schadenfreude Thus, as Nietzsche (1887/1967) suggested, schadenfreude appeared to very much be “a vengefulness of the impotent.” In the condition in which the out-group’s success was established immediately before the schadenfreude opportunity, otherfocused explanations were advantaged as potential explanations of schadenfreude Yet, they played little role Thus, the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s success, illegitimacy-based anger, and envy had little effect on schadenfreude In this condition, it was the pain of the inferiority implied by the out-group’s success Although there is reason to suspect that men may be more prone to show schadenfreude in the domain of international sport competition, this is largely because men tend to be more interested in this domain As domain interest was treated as a covariate in this analysis, it is likely to have provided a more psychological account for the possible effects of gender Dislike of the out-group, dislike of the victor, and domain interest were treated as covariates, none of which were statistically reliable (all ps Ͼ 22) Treating these variables as covariates was supported by the fact that other analyses showed them not to moderate the effects reported Thus, pain of inferiority (centered), perceived illegitimacy of out-group success (centered), perceived illegitimacy of in-group inferiority (centered), and order (in-group inferiority first vs out-group success first) were treated as factors that could interact Order had no main effect on schadenfreude, F(1, 99) ϭ 0.192, p ϭ 66, partial ␩2 Ͻ 002 The perceived illegitimacy of in-group inferiority had no main effect on schadenfreude, F(1, 99) ϭ 0.012, p ϭ 92, partial ␩2 Ͻ 001 However, the perceived illegitimacy of out-group success, F(1, 99) ϭ 3.99, p ϭ 05, partial ␩2 ϭ 05, and the pain of in-group inferiority increased schadenfreude, F(1, 99) ϭ 43.62, p Ͻ 001, partial ␩2 ϭ 35 The pain of inferiority was not moderated by the perceived illegitimacy of this inferiority, F(1, 99) ϭ 0.083, p ϭ 77, partial ␩2 ϭ 001, or by the perceived illegitimacy of out-group success, F(1, 99) ϭ 2.16, p ϭ 15, partial ␩2 ϭ 03 However, order was a marginal moderator of the pain of inferiority, F(1, 99) ϭ 3.35, p ϭ 07, partial ␩2 ϭ 04 The pain of inferiority was a stronger predictor of schadenfreude when the in-group’s inferiority was established first (␤ ϭ 0.670, p Ͻ 001, vs ␤ ϭ 0.511, p ϭ 001) The order manipulation did not moderate the effects of perceived illegitimacy of in-group inferiority, F(1, 99) ϭ 1.25, p ϭ 27, partial ␩2 ϭ 02, or the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s success, F(1, 99) ϭ 2.37, p ϭ 13, partial ␩2 Ͻ 03 PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE 1389 Envy: Out-group Success −.22 Illegitimacy: Outgroup Success Pain: Implied Inferiority 72* 36* Dislike of Out-group 17 48* 14 01 Anger: Out-group Success 70* 35* 09 R2 = 62 14 Pain: Domain inferiority Schadenfreude at Out-group Failure 46* 18 Illegitimacy: Inferiority Figure Structural model: In-group inferiority and out-group success established before schadenfreude opportunity, Study that provided the strongest basis of the anger that was a potent explanation of schadenfreude This is consistent with the ressentiment pathway we specified, following Nietzsche (1887/1967) More important, in the condition in which it was possible, schadenfreude did not cause greater pain of domain inferiority This suggests that the relation between pain of domain inferiority and schadenfreude is nonrecursive—the pain of domain inferiority causes schadenfreude, but not vice versa Such evidence is important to our causal claims given that both constructs were measured The absence of a schadenfreude pain of domain inferiority causal link is also important evidence against the idea that schadenfreude somehow serves to reduce the pain of domain inferiority Although some might expect schadenfreude to have Envy: Out-group Success −.22 −.01 07 Illegitimacy: Outgroup Success 14 Pain: Implied Inferiority 47* 14 Dislike of Out-group 12 R2 = 57 75* Anger: Out-group Success 75* Schadenfreude at Out-group Failure 38* −.08 Pain: Domain inferiority 36* 07 Illegitimacy: Inferiority Figure Structural model: Out-group success established before schadenfreude opportunity, Study LEACH AND SPEARS 1390 this sort of self-enhancement function, this is not consistent with Nietzsche’s (1887/1967) approach As he put it, The desire is to deaden, by means of a more violent emotion of any kind, a tormenting, secret pain that is becoming unendurable, and to drive it out of consciousness at least for the moment [italics added] It goes without saying that a “medication” of this kind, a mere affect medication, cannot possibly bring about a real cure of sickness (pp 127–128) Thus, Nietzsche suggested that schadenfreude serves only as a temporary anesthetic for the pain of domain inferiority As schadenfreude toward a third party does not address the in-group’s broader inferiority in a domain, the pain of this domain inferiority should be unaffected by schadenfreude toward a third party This is what we observed in the experimental condition in which schadenfreude could cause the pain of domain inferiority Study Study was designed to corroborate Study and to extend it in at least two ways First, we altered the paradigm to manipulate the illegitimacy of both in-group inferiority and out-group success This move from measured to manipulated illegitimacy was especially important to the examination of the illegitimacy of the out-group’s success Although there was sufficient variance in the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s success to allow this variable to predict schadenfreude (through anger), participants tended to disagree that the out-group’s success was illegitimate in Study Thus, we thought it important to be able to compare out-group success perceived as legitimate to that perceived as illegitimate Manipulating the illegitimacy of out-group success was also important because perceived illegitimacy may have a differential association with anger than does objective illegitimacy (Leach, 2008; R H Smith et al., 1994) Indeed, Feather and Sherman (2002) suggested that it is objective illegitimacy that leads to anger and thus schadenfreude In contrast, our model proposes that whether it is objective or subjective, the illegitimacy of (in- or out-)group performance is only a very modest explanation of schadenfreude In a second major improvement over Study 1, we recruited a large sample of participants This was done for three main reasons First, we wanted to perform a confirmatory factor analysis on our emotion measures Second, we wanted to have ample statistical power to detect some of the small effects shown in Study Third, we wanted to improve our structural model by using latent, rather than measured, variables In this way, we could account for measurement error Method Participants and Procedure Participants were 412 psychology students at the University of Amsterdam (291 women and 121 men), who participated in medium-sized groups in a classroom setting Design In a ϫ factorial design, we manipulated the illegitimacy (i.e., legitimate vs illegitimate) of the in-group’s inferiority and the illegitimacy of an out-group’s independent success in the same domain This was accomplished by adding information about the procedure of the interuniversity competition used in Study As in the baseline condition of Study 1, we first established the ingroup’s inferiority, then established the out-group as successful, and finally presented the opportunity for, and assessed, schadenfreude Thus, emotions regarding both in-group inferiority and out-group success could cause schadenfreude It is important to note that participants had no reason to suspect that they would have an opportunity for schadenfreude before one was actually presented As in Study 1, the in-group’s domain inferiority was established in a table showing them to have lost five of the six matches they played However, also contained in the table was a column indicating which university faculty had chosen the questions used in the match For legitimate domain inferiority, four of the five times that the in-group was defeated the questions were chosen by the faculty of a university different from the winning university Thus, the procedure of the matches was fair, establishing the in-group’s domain inferiority as legitimate (see Lind & Tyler, 1988) For illegitimate domain inferiority, four of the five times that the in-group was defeated the questions were chosen by the faculty of the winning group and were thus procedurally unfair and illegitimate We used the procedural legitimacy of the out-group’s matches to manipulate the illegitimacy of their success in a similar way, and their success was established as in Study Manipulation Checks Group performance Immediately after the information regarding each group’s performance, the five items from Study assessed participants’ view of each group as strong and successful in the quiz domain This measure was internally consistent regarding the in-group (␣ ϭ 82) and the out-group (␣ ϭ 78) Confirming that participants understood the performance information, they viewed the in-group as performing somewhat poorly (M ϭ 4.03, SD ϭ 0.83), but viewed the out-group as performing fairly well (M ϭ 5.14, SD ϭ 0.77; p Ͻ 001) Perceived procedural illegitimacy To check our manipulation, we asked participants questions regarding the procedure that determined their in-group’s domain inferiority immediately after this information was presented We asked the same questions regarding the procedure that determined the out-group’s success.3 All items were presented with a Likert-type scale that ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree), reversed to indicate perceived illegitimacy Three items assessed perception of the procedure as “legitimate,” “right,” and “fair.” These scales were internally consistent regarding the in-group (␣ ϭ 56) and the out-group (␣ ϭ 77) Mixed in with the manipulation check items were the four items used in Study to assess the perceived illegitimacy of the out-group’s success (␣ ϭ 71) Participants were asked whether it was “fair” (reversed), “unfair,” “illegitimate,” and “acceptable” (reversed), using a Likert-type scale that ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) Our manipulation of the procedural illegitimacy of the out-group’s success operated in a way similar to our measure of perceived illegitimacy in Study Thus, procedurally illegitimate out-group success led to greater perceived illegitimacy than did legitimate success (b ϭ 707, SE ϭ 098, p Ͻ 001) PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE Emotion Measures We assessed pain of domain inferiority (␣ ϭ 80), envy (␣ ϭ 89), anger about the out-group’s success (␣ ϭ 90), the pain of implied inferiority (␣ ϭ 88), and schadenfreude (␣ ϭ 92) as in Study Given that schadenfreude, and the four emotional explanations of it, was assessed in the same way in Studies and 2, we combined these data to perform a confirmatory factor analysis Our hypothesized measurement model specified pain of domain inferiority, envy, anger, pain of implied inferiority, and schadenfreude as latent variables Each item was allowed to indicate only its corresponding latent variable, and no errors were allowed to correlate However, we did allow all of the latent variables to correlate with each other Given the large N, it is not surprising that the sample-size– dependent chi-square was large and statistically reliable, ␹2(125, N ϭ 412) ϭ 543.38, p Ͻ 001 However, in the case of measurement models, other indices provide a better indication of fit Indeed, the hypothesized model fit the data well according to a variety of fit (NFI ϭ 924, CFI ϭ 940, IFI ϭ 940) and residual (SRMR ϭ 043, RMSEA ϭ 081) indices In terms of item loadings, the pain of domain inferiority (.694 –.830), envy (.792– 1.00), anger (.842–.887), pain of implied inferiority (.741–.879), and schadenfreude (.749 –.917) all appeared unitary, with all indicators producing statistically reliable and strong loadings on their latent factor Pain of implied inferiority and anger were most highly intercorrelated (r ϭ 88, p Ͻ 001) This is consistent with our conceptualization of ressentiment The pain of domain inferiority was highly correlated with the pain of implied inferiority (r ϭ.77, p Ͻ 001) and moderately correlated with anger (r ϭ 66, p Ͻ 001) Envy had only low correlations with the other emotions (rs ϭ 14 –.29, p Ͻ 05) That the emotion measures are distinct despite these intercorrelations was further suggested by our comparison of the hypothesized model to alternatives.4 Alternative Explanations As in Study 1, we assessed dislike of the out-group, dislike of the victor, and interest in the domain of competition (␣ ϭ 83) as alternative explanations of schadenfreude Separate analyses showed these variables not to moderate our hypothesized explanations Excluding them from the analyses below did not alter the pattern of results Prior analyses showed gender to have no main or interaction effects, thus it was excluded here Results Perceived Procedural Illegitimacy We first checked the effectiveness of our manipulations of the procedural illegitimacy of the in-group’s and the out-group’s performance Thus, we included both manipulations in a multivariate analysis of variance with perceived procedural illegitimacy of the in-group’s domain inferiority and the out-group’s success as outcomes Both manipulations had statistically reliable multivariate effects (both ps Ͻ 001, both ␩2s Ͼ 15) At the univariate level, the procedural illegitimacy of in-group performance affected only the perceived procedural illegitimacy of in-group domain inferiority, F(1, 416) ϭ 59.67, p Ͻ 001 Illegitimate domain inferiority was perceived as more illegitimate (M ϭ 4.30, SD ϭ 1.40) than procedurally legitimate in-group inferiority 1391 (M ϭ 3.30, SD ϭ 1.21) In addition, the procedural illegitimacy of out-group performance affected only the perceived procedural illegitimacy of out-group success, F(1, 416) ϭ 72.05, p Ͻ 001 Illegitimate out-group success was perceived as more illegitimate (M ϭ 4.54, SD ϭ 1.47) than legitimate out-group success (M ϭ 3.57, SD ϭ 1.21) Taken together, these results suggest that we were able to manipulate successfully the procedural illegitimacy of both groups’ performance Schadenfreude As in Study 1, an analysis of covariance showed the pain of domain inferiority to have a reliable effect of moderate magnitude on schadenfreude that was not moderated by the illegitimacy of the in-group’s domain inferiority or the out-group’s success.5 However, to examine our full conceptual model, we estimated a covariance structure model with latent variables The means and intercorrelations of these variables are reported in Table To further confirm the adequacy of the hypothesized measurement model, we compared it with four more parsimonious alternatives First, we compared the hypothesized model with one that specified all the items as indicating a single, general-emotion latent variable This first alternative fit the data much less well than our hypothesized model, ⌬␹2(10) ϭ 2,111.13, p Ͻ 001 Indeed, this model fit the data poorly in an absolute sense, as shown in a variety of fit (NFI ϭ 626, CFI ϭ 638, IFI ϭ 639) and residual (SRMR ϭ 111, RMSEA ϭ 192) indices Second, we compared the hypothesized model with one that combined the items of pain of implied inferiority and anger into one variable (i.e., ressentiment) but left the others untouched This alternative fit less well than the hypothesized model, ⌬␹2(4) ϭ 159.15, p Ͻ 001 It also fit the data poorly in an absolute sense, as shown in a variety of fit (NFI ϭ 901, CFI ϭ 917, IFI ϭ 918) and residual (SRMR ϭ 052, RMSEA ϭ 094) indices Third, we compared the hypothesized model with one that combined the items of pain of domain inferiority and pain of implied inferiority into one variable but left the others untouched This alternative fit less well than the hypothesized model, ⌬␹2(6) ϭ 219.53, p Ͻ 001 It also fit the data poorly in an absolute sense, as shown in a variety of fit (NFI ϭ 893, CFI ϭ 909, IFI ϭ 909) and residual (SRMR ϭ 053, RMSEA ϭ 099) indices Fourth, we compared the hypothesized model with one that combined the items of pain of domain inferiority and schadenfreude into one variable but left the others untouched This alternative fit less well than our hypothesized model, ⌬␹2(6) ϭ 598.81, p Ͻ 001 It also fit the data poorly in an absolute sense, as shown in a variety of fit (NFI ϭ 839, CFI ϭ 854, IFI ϭ 855) and residual (SRMR ϭ 105, RMSEA ϭ 125) indices The continuous measures of dislike and domain interest were treated as covariates, whereas the procedural illegitimacy of in-group inferiority, the procedural illegitimacy of out-group success, and the pain of inferiority were treated as factors that could interact None of the covariates were statistically reliable (all ps Ͼ 10) However, the procedural illegitimacy of success produced a reliable main effect of small magnitude, F(1, 412) ϭ 4.03, p ϭ 01, partial ␩2 ϭ 01 Greater schadenfreude was shown toward the out-group when their success was procedurally illegitimate (M ϭ 2.73, SD ϭ 1.40) rather than legitimate (M ϭ 2.45, SD ϭ 1.42) As expected, the pain of inferiority produced a much larger effect on schadenfreude, F(1, 412) ϭ 132.63, p Ͻ 001, partial ␩2 ϭ 25 The procedural illegitimacy of in-group inferiority did not moderate the pain of inferiority, F(1, 412) ϭ 2.94, p ϭ 09, partial ␩2 ϭ 007 In addition, the procedural illegitimacy of the out-group’s success did not moderate the pain of inferiority, F(1, 412) ϭ 2.44, p ϭ 12, partial ␩2 ϭ 006 No other interaction effects were noteworthy (all ps Ͼ 80) LEACH AND SPEARS 1392 Given the large N, it is not surprising that the sample-sensitive chi-square was large and highly reliable, ␹2(323, N ϭ 412) ϭ 728.13, p Ͻ 001 However, a variety of fit (NNFI ϭ 930, CFI ϭ 941, IFI ϭ 941) and residual (SRMR ϭ 049, RMSEA ϭ 056) indices showed the model to fit well Indeed, the model accounted for 44% of the variance in schadenfreude The model, with standardized parameter estimates, is shown in Figure As hypothesized, the pain of domain inferiority was a statistically reliable explanation of schadenfreude with a medium-sized effect The perceived illegitimacy of domain inferiority was not associated with the pain felt about it Also as expected, the pain of domain inferiority was strongly linked to the pain of implied inferiority In support of the ressentiment pathway, the pain of implied inferiority had a notable indirect effect on schadenfreude through anger at the out-group’s success (.400) Consistent with full mediation, the model fit well without estimating a direct path between pain of implied inferiority and schadenfreude Indeed, the LaGrange multiplier modification index showed that adding this path would not improve model fit ( p Ͼ 10) None of the other-focused explanations of schadenfreude produced notable effects Thus, envy (direct effect ϭ 080), dislikebased anger (indirect effect ϭ 028), and illegitimacy-based anger (indirect effect ϭ 056) had very small effects on schadenfreude However, given the high statistical power in this study, the two paths involved in the illegitimacy-based anger pathway were statistically reliable here despite being of similar magnitude and nonreliable in Study That the model fit well without specifying direct paths to schadenfreude from dislike of the out-group or perceived illegitimacy of their success suggests that these otherfocused explanations were unimportant Indeed, LaGrange multiplier modification indices showed that adding these paths would not improve model fit (both ps Ͼ 05) of Hareli and Weiner (2002) and Feather and Sherman (2002) Thus, where envy is distinguished from the pain of implied inferiority, the perceived illegitimacy of another party’s success, and the anger that envy is often conflated with (e.g., Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk et al., 2006), envy explains little schadenfreude That envy was not linked to the other-focused explanations of schadenfreude also suggests against envy being indirectly linked to schadenfreude through feelings like anger (see Leach, 2008) In contrast to the explanations that focus on individuals’ emotional responses to another party’s success, those involving the pain of inferiority were much more potent explanations of schadenfreude As in Study 1, the pain of in-group domain inferiority was by far the strongest explanation of schadenfreude The pain of domain inferiority led to schadenfreude even though this pain was assessed before participants had any reason to expect an opportunity for schadenfreude Thus, it was clear that the pain of domain inferiority caused schadenfreude In contrast, the procedural illegitimacy of the in-group’s inferiority did not cause schadenfreude and did not moderate the effect of the pain of domain inferiority This corroborates and extends Study by using a manipulation of the objective illegitimacy of in-group inferiority rather than a measure of perceived illegitimacy Study also offered further support of Nietzsche’s (1887/1967) notion of ressentiment As in Study 1, individuals’ pain about their in-group’s independently established domain inferiority led to pain about the inferiority implied by a third-party out-group’s success This pain of implied inferiority was strongly linked to anger, a potent predictor of schadenfreude The ressentiment pathway explained much more schadenfreude than the anger based in the procedural illegitimacy of the out-group’s success or dislike of the out-group Thus, whether as a direct explanation or as an indirect explanation through the ressentiment pathway, the pain of in-group inferiority determined the vast majority of the schadenfreude shown at the third-party out-group’s failure Discussion Where an out-group’s success was procedurally illegitimate, it led to greater schadenfreude at their subsequent failure This is consistent with the justice model implied in Feather and Sherman (2002) More important, our structural model offers the first direct support for the notion that illegitimate success leads to schadenfreude because it promotes an illegitimacy-based anger However, this very small effect was only detected because of the high statistical power in this study Envy that was narrowly defined as coveting another’s success did not explain schadenfreude This is consistent with the findings General Discussion A wide variety of psychological theory and research has suggested that inferiority is a painful emotional experience that poses a serious threat to the self-concept Indeed, inferiority is so painful that people seem to seek emotional succor for it by taking advantage of others’ misfortunes to feel the pleasure of schadenfreude Discussing national and religious groups’ experience of inferiority, Nietzsche (1887/1967) argued that the pain of inferiority makes people prone to feel pleasure at the failure of a successful out- Table Means and Intercorrelations of Schadenfreude and Its Potential Explanations: Study Measure a ‫ء‬ M (SD) a Dislike out-group Domain interesta Pain of inferiorityb Pain of implied inferiorityb Envyb Angerb Schadenfreudeb 3.36 (1.26) 4.48 (1.15) 2.27 (1.09) 2.30 (1.22) 3.10 (1.62) 2.46 (1.37) 2.60 (1.40) — Ϫ.09 — Response scale ranged from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) p Ͻ 05 b 03 08 — ‫ء‬ 10 12‫ء‬ 66‫ء‬ — ‫ء‬ Ϫ.17 25‫ء‬ 18‫ء‬ 21‫ء‬ — ‫ء‬ 12 11‫ء‬ 54‫ء‬ 76‫ء‬ 01 — Response scale ranged from (not at all) to (very much) Ϫ.07 09 49‫ء‬ 56‫ء‬ 10 59‫ء‬ — PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE Want 1.0* Be like 81* Threatened 78* Frustrated 88* 1393 Envy: Out-group Success Pain of Inferiority: Implied 80* Inferior 75* Illegitimacy: Out-group Success Dislike: Out-group 12* Ashamed 85* 82* Frustrated 83* R2 =.44 Irritated 74* 47* 85* 89* Hostile Angry 74* Threatened 08 Anger: Out-group 06 Schadenfreude Pain of Inferiority: Domain 24* 73* Inferior 92* 89* 93* Satisfied3 Happy Satisfied2 Illegitimacy: inferiority Satisfied1 01 89* Schadenfreude Ashamed 74* 72* Figure Structural model: In-group inferiority and out-group success established before schadenfreude opportunity, Study group that played no role in establishing the in-group’s inferiority This is why he characterized schadenfreude as “a vengefulness of the impotent.” Our model built on this view The pain of domain inferiority had similar effects across two studies It is important that we found the pain of domain inferiority to lead to schadenfreude independently of numerous alternative explanations, including preexisting dislike of the out-group, dislike of the victor who defeated the out-group, and interest in the domain of competition Most important, Studies and showed that the pain of inferiority was a stronger explanation of schadenfreude than the emotional reactions to the other party’s success that have been the focus of most previous theory and research (e.g., envy, illegitimacy, and illegitimacy-based anger) In contrast to most previous work, we established an in-group’s domain inferiority independently of out-group success in the same domain This allowed us to assess the pain of in-group inferiority independently of the pain felt about inferiority implied by out-group success in this domain This procedure also enabled us to independently assess individuals’ envy and anger about out-group success as well as the degree to which it was illegitimate By distinguishing between these competing explanations of schadenfreude, the two studies presented here provide a comprehensive examination of the main explanations of schadenfreude offered at the interpersonal and intergroup levels of analysis Consistent with work at the interpersonal level that assessed envy as coveting another party’s success (i.e., Feather & Sherman, 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002), envy offered no explanation of schadenfreude here This is likely because envy was here disentangled from the other-focused explanations with which it has been conflated in some prior research (i.e., perceived illegitimacy of other’s success and illegitimacy-based anger) Our novel way of independently establishing in-group domain inferiority and outgroup success helped this disentanglement In addition, distinguishing the pain of domain inferiority from the pain of inferiority implied by out-group success helped to isolate the effect of envy on schadenfreude and separate it from the more potent effect of the ressentiment based in the pain of implied inferiority (cf R H Smith et al., 1996; van Dijk et al., 2006) Dislike-based anger at the successful out-group and the illegitimacy of out-group success both formed very modest explanations of schadenfreude Whether the illegitimacy of an out-group’s success was perceived (Study 1) or experimentally manipulated (Study 2), it led to somewhat greater schadenfreude As suggested by previous theory (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002; R H Smith, LEACH AND SPEARS 1394 1991), the illegitimacy of out-group success affected schadenfreude mainly through feelings of anger However, results did not support the view that schadenfreude is largely a response to such illegitimate success (e.g., Feather & Sherman, 2002) Indeed, the pain of in-group inferiority explained schadenfreude at many times the magnitude of illegitimacy-based anger Study showed that even where the pain of domain inferiority was eliminated, illegitimacy-based anger was only a weak explanation Here, ressentiment best explained schadenfreude Thus, even where an out-group’s success was perceived as illegitimate, schadenfreude was more “a vengefulness of the impotent” than a reaction to this injustice (for a discussion, see Leach, 2008) The illegitimacy of the in-group’s inferiority had even weaker effects than the illegitimacy of the out-group’s success We expected the illegitimacy of in-group inferiority to play little role in schadenfreude toward a successful out-group because such illegitimacy should have little effect on the pain of in-group inferiority Whether legitimate or illegitimate, in-group inferiority poses a threat to the self-concept (Spears et al., 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Thus, it is inferiority, rather than illegitimacy, that should promote emotional pain and thus schadenfreude We should acknowledge, however, that a good deal of theory within the social identity tradition (e.g., Spears et al., 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and in other traditions (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Walker & Smith, 2002; Wills, 1981) has suggested that illegitimate inferiority can promote more active and direct malice toward superior out-groups However, Bettencourt et al.’s (2001) meta-analysis showed illegitimacy to play only a minor role in inferior in-groups’ devaluation of comparatively superior out-groups This is consistent with our finding that the illegitimacy of in-group inferiority plays little role in schadenfreude toward a successful out-group Possible Limitations Of course, these studies have some possible limitations Perhaps most important is the fact that there was little moderation of the strong predictive power of the pain of domain inferiority Future research would well to generate manipulations of illegitimacy that alter or even negate the predictive power of the pain of domain inferiority However, this may be easier said than done The crux of our conceptual argument, and the most robust finding in these studies, is that the pain of domain inferiority is a strong predictor of schadenfreude toward out-groups even where the in-group’s inferiority and the out-group’s success are illegitimate Another possible limitation concerns generalizability Can the present model be generalized to schadenfreude at levels of analysis other than the intergroup? There are at least three reasons why we believe our model can be treated as a general one First, most previous research has assumed that it was addressing schadenfreude in general, despite the fact that it was focused on the interpersonal level of analysis As emotions may just as easily operate at the group level as at the interpersonal level (see E R Smith, 1993; Tiedens & Leach, 2004), there is no reason to assume that work done at one level of analysis is more general than another Second, our approach was based on a novel (conceptual and methodological) separation of own inferiority and another’s success that is relevant to all levels of analysis Establishing the self’s inferiority and the other’s success independently is necessary to an examination of their independent effects As research at the interpersonal level has simply exposed individuals to a successful party, it is in a poor position to identify the precise explanation of schadenfreude Although anger at or envy of another party’s success may appear to explain schadenfreude, the pain of the inferiority implied by the other party’s success may be lurking as an unexamined explanation This suggests that our conceptual model is highly relevant to models of schadenfreude developed at the interpersonal level A third reason that our conceptual model should be considered general is that it combines explanations of schadenfreude researched at the interpersonal level (i.e., dislike, envy, illegitimacy of another party’s success, dislike-based anger, and illegitimacybased anger) with the explanations Nietzsche (1887/1967) believed to operate across levels of analysis (i.e., the pain of domain inferiority and ressentiment) Thus our model is integrative In addition, we went to great lengths to distinguish constructs that have been conflated in previous research (e.g., envy, the pain of implied inferiority, and anger at another party’s success) and to examine pathways that have only been implied in research at the interpersonal level (e.g., dislike-based anger and illegitimacybased anger) These distinctions between constructs, and their integration into a comprehensive model, are not specific to the intergroup level As such, the constructs we have specified and the measures we have developed offer a general model of schadenfreude that may be examined at any level of analysis Broader Implications Our model of schadenfreude differs from prevailing perspectives on intergroup malevolence For example, unlike right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988) or the notion of envious prejudice (e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), we not presume that malevolence is shown toward out-groups who directly threaten the in-group In fact, we showed that the pain of an in-group’s inferiority in a domain leads to schadenfreude toward successful out-groups who played no role in establishing this domain inferiority In addition, the out-groups who were legitimately successful invited less schadenfreude than those who were illegitimately successful Thus, those out-groups who posed the most legitimate status threat to the in-group attracted less schadenfreude This is consistent with our suggestion that schadenfreude is determined more by the in-group’s inferiority than by the material threat posed by the out-group In the case of schadenfreude, it is the happenstance of an out-group’s failure in the domain of ingroup inferiority that makes them vulnerable (Leach et al., 2003; Spears & Leach, 2004) In this way, schadenfreude based in the pain of domain inferiority represents a more insidious form of malevolence than is conceptualized in the prevailing group bias and prejudice perspectives Our emphasis of the role that in-group inferiority plays in malevolence toward out-groups harkens back to the Frankfurt school view of displacement in prejudice (e.g., Fromm, 1941; Marcuse, 1961) This contextualist view of displacement argued that prejudice can be directed at those made vulnerable by circumstance As such, it suggests that nearly any out-group, not just those who are severely disadvantaged or pose a threat to the in-group, can be used to provide in-group members emotional succor for their inferiority or other insecurity In both of the PAIN OF INFERIORITY AND SCHADENFREUDE present studies, schadenfreude was shown toward out-groups who were mild rivals of the in-group but generally equal in status It was the unforeseeable happenstance of their failure in the domain of the in-group’s inferiority that made these out-groups vulnerable to the in-group’s schadenfreude This contextualist view also fits with that advocated by social identity theory (see Spears et al., 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) We conceptualized and studied schadenfreude as an unfolding emotional episode Thus, an unpleasant feeling regarding the self led to a pleasant feeling regarding the misfortune of another party As such, schadenfreude based in the pain of inferiority requires a change in both the target and the valence of emotion Even though schadenfreude is a feeling about another party’s failure, it is best explained by the self-focused feeling of pain about the self’s inferiority The dynamic quality of the schadenfreude episode is also illustrated in its explanation by ressentiment In the case of ressentiment, a self-focused pain of implied inferiority is externalized into the feeling of anger at a successful party (for being successful) Although it is this “other-focused” anger that is the proximate explanation of schadenfreude, the anger of ressentiment is clearly self-focused in origin The role of the pain of inferiority, and its attendant anger, in the explanation of schadenfreude illustrates how emotions can represent peoples’ dynamic psychological negotiation of their social relations (see Leach, 2008; Tiedens & Leach, 2004) Where self-focused emotions lead to emotions about others, simplified notions of self- and other-focused feelings must give way to more dynamic models that track shifts in the valence and target of emotion as a result of the self’s concerns and the contextual affordances and constraints that moderate these concerns (Spears & Leach, 2004; Tiedens & Leach, 2004) Conceptualizing schadenfreude as a psychological negotiation of intergroup relations suggests a perspective that combines the psychological (e.g., emotional pain, perceived illegitimacy, and emotion) with the social (e.g., objective group status, procedural illegitimacy, and others’ unanticipated failures) In this way, work on emotion at the intergroup level offers a way to integrate the more macro social identity and prejudice traditions of research on intergroup relations with the more micro traditions of research on the self and emotion so central to social psychology (see E R Smith, 1993; Tiedens & Leach, 2004) Although the dialectic between the psychological and the social was central to modern psychological approaches to social relations (e.g., Fromm, 1941; Marcuse, 1961), more recent work on interpersonal and intergroup relations rarely engages this issue directly Our conceptual model of schadenfreude offers one illustration of the dynamic interplay between the subjective experience and the objective reality of social relations References Allport, G W (1979) The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary edition) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (Original work published 1954) Altemeyer, F (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 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 Brewer, M B (1979) In-group bias in the intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis Psychological Bulletin, 86, 207–324 1395 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 Fiske, S T., Cuddy, A J C., Glick, P., & Xu, J (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878 –902 Fromm, E (1941) Escape from freedom New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Green, D P., Glaser, J., & Rich, A (1998) From lynching to gay bashing: The elusive connection between economic conditions and hate crime Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 82–92 Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., & Kirkland, S (1990) Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308 –318 Hareli, S., & Weiner, B (2002) Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another’s misfortune Motivation and Emotion, 26, 257–277 Hu, L., & Bentler, P M (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55 Leach, C W (2008) Envy, inferiority, and injustice: Three bases of anger about inequality In R H Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and research (pp 94 –116) New York: Oxford University Press Leach, C W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N R., & Doosje, B (2003) Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 932–943 Lewis, H B (1971) Shame and guilt in neurosis New York: International Universities Press Lind, E A., & Tyler, T R (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice New York: Plenum Press Macdonald, G., & Leary, M R (2005) Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 131, 202–223 Marcuse, H (1961) Eros and civilization: An inquiry into Freud New York: Vintage Books Nietzsche, F (1967) On the genealogy of morals (W Kaufmann & R J Hollingdale, Trans.) New York: Random House (Original work published 1887) Scheff, T (1994) Emotions and identity: A theory of ethnic nationalism In C Calhoun (Ed.), Social theory and the politics of identity (pp 277–302) Oxford, England: Blackwell Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression New York: Cambridge University Press Smith, E R (1993) Social identity and social emotions: Toward a new conceptualization of prejudice In D M Mackie & D L Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping (pp 297–315) San Diego, CA: Academic Press 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, G W., 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, V., & Weston, C (1996) Envy and schadenfreude Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 158 –168 Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B (2001) The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance In J Jost & B Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, jus- 1396 LEACH AND SPEARS tice, and intergroup relations, (pp 332–362) New York: Cambridge University Press 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 Worshel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp 33– 47) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Tangney, J P., Wagner, P E., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R (1992) Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669 – 675 Tiedens, L Z., & Leach, C W (Eds.) (2004) The social life of emotions New York: Cambridge University Press Van Dijk, W., Ouwerkerk, J W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M (2006) When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude Emotion, 6, 156 –160 Walker, I., & Smith, H J (2002) Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration New York: Cambridge University Press Wills, T A (1981) Downward comparison principles in social psychology Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271 Received May 2, 2006 Revision received April 7, 2008 Accepted April 9, 2008 Ⅲ New Editors Appointed, 2010 –2015 The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association announces the appointment of new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2010 As of January 1, 2009, manuscripts should be directed as follows: ● Psychological Assessment (http://www.apa.org/journals/pas), Cecil R Reynolds, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, 704 Harrington Education Center, College Station, TX 77843 ● Journal of Family Psychology (http://www.apa.org/journals/fam), Nadine Kaslow, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Grady Health System, 80 Jesse Hill Jr Drive, SE, Atlanta, GA 30303 ● Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes (http://www.apa.org/ journals/xan), Anthony Dickinson, PhD, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom ● Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp), Laura A King, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211 Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2009, manuscripts should be submitted electronically 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 2009 volumes uncertain Current editors, Milton E Strauss, PhD, Anne E Kazak, PhD, Nicholas Mackintosh, PhD, and Charles S Carver, PhD, will receive and consider manuscripts through December 31, 2008 Should 2009 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will be redirected to the new editors for consideration in 2010 volumes  ... potent explanations of schadenfreude As in Study 1, the pain of in-group domain inferiority was by far the strongest explanation of schadenfreude The pain of domain inferiority led to schadenfreude. .. ressentiment toward a successful third party should mediate the association between the pain of implied in-group inferiority and schadenfreude toward the third party Thus, we expect the pain of implied inferiority. .. confirmatory factor analysis Our hypothesized measurement model specified pain of domain inferiority, envy, anger, pain of implied inferiority, and schadenfreude as latent variables Each item was allowed