The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who Takes the most Revenge? Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement
Abstract
The authors report that beliefs favoring the reciprocation of unfavorable treatment form a unitary factor that is distinct from beliefs favoring the reciprocation of favorable treatment. Individual differences in endorsement of this negative reciprocity norm were related to (a) beliefs that people are generally malevolent; (b) inclination toward anger in everyday life; (c) anger, disagreement, and ridicule directed toward a new acquaintance who treated participants unfavorably; and (d) reduced anxiety, positive emotional engagement, and encouragement of a new acquaintance who treated participants favorably. These findings suggest that individual differences in endorsement of the negative norm of reciprocity influence the extent of vengeance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015) · doi:10.4324/9781315749105 · Cited by 6,604
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 · Cited by 4,693
Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/bf02249397 · Cited by 2,392
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077
Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing, K. F., Relyea, N., & Simons, R. F. (2002) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00460 · Cited by 442
Cited by
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315575554 · Cited by 2,354
Self-citationMitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 · Cited by 1,514
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019214 · Cited by 873
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030687 · Cited by 368
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S.
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 787-799
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2055059032
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 7.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who Takes the most Revenge? Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0146167204264047
- The paper
- Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who Takes the most Revenge? Individual Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264047
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
