Retaliation is the inherent human tendency to respond to perceived slights with proportional negative action. A regular diner customer discovers an unexplained surcharge and a curt waiter – they stop coming and warn friends. A photo-editing app moves features behind a paywall without notice – users leave negative reviews and switch to competitors. While reciprocity emphasizes the positive cycle of giving and receiving, retaliation underscores the desire to “settle the score” when treated unfairly.
The study
Brosnan and De Waal (2003) observed capuchin monkeys, who, when presented with unequal rewards for the same task, displayed a sense of fairness strikingly similar to humans. A monkey that received a less desirable reward (like a slice of cucumber) for the same effort as another monkey getting a more desirable reward (a grape) would often refuse to accept their reward. This behavior, termed “equity aversion,” suggests that the urge to retaliate when perceiving unfairness is not exclusive to humans and has deep evolutionary roots.
B. Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297-299.
The principle underlying retaliation is rooted in the fundamental human desire for fairness and justice. When individuals perceive that they have been treated unfairly, they often respond with actions intended to “balance the scales.” This drive for equity is deeply embedded in human psychology and can be observed across cultures and contexts. Retaliation is intricately linked to the principle of Loss Aversion. The pain of a loss (or perceived slight) is often felt more acutely than the pleasure of a gain. This is especially true for retaliation, or negative reciprocity, which carries more emotional weight than positive reciprocity. The urge to “set things right” after feeling wronged often outweighs the potential benefits of letting go or responding with generosity.
Designing products with Retaliation
When users feel a product takes more than it gives – in data, time, or money – they retaliate through negative reviews, churn, and public warnings. The designer’s responsibility is to ensure the exchange always feels fair: timely rewards, transparent policies, and equivalent value for user investment.
If your platform includes mechanisms for negative feedback (downvotes, reports, reviews), design them to serve legitimate purposes with clear guidelines, moderation tools, and checks against abuse. Balance negative reciprocation with avenues for positive feedback – otherwise users stay trapped in negative loops. Not all products need a retaliation mechanism; assess your user base and context carefully before adding one.
Ethical recommendations
One primary concern with allowing retaliation is the pitfall of creating a toxic environment or to unfairly target certain users. For instance, allowing users to collectively downvote or retaliate against a particular user or viewpoint could lead to groupthink, where minority opinions are suppressed. Additionally, without proper safeguards, the retaliation mechanism can be weaponized for personal vendettas, cyberbullying, or to serve vested interests. Lastly, overemphasis on negative feedback can create a hostile environment, deterring new users and demotivating existing ones.
-
Implement safeguards
Introduce measures to prevent the misuse of the retaliation mechanism. For example, limit the frequency of negative feedback a user can give within a specific timeframe or introduce cooldown periods. -
Monitor and moderate
Regularly monitor user interactions, especially where retaliation mechanisms are employed. Consider implementing automated systems to flag potential misuse and ensure human oversight for critical decisions. -
Educate the user base
Make users aware of the purpose of the retaliation feature and the importance of using it responsibly. Encourage constructive feedback over mere negative reactions. -
Balance with positive interactions
While allowing for negative reciprocation, always ensure there are avenues for positive interactions. This balance can prevent the environment from becoming overly negative. -
Transparency
If a user is on the receiving end of retaliation actions, ensure they have a clear understanding of why it happened and provide avenues for redress or appeal. Ethical use of the Retaliation pattern requires a deep understanding of human behavior and a commitment to user welfare. By ensuring a balance between allowing users to express dissatisfaction and preventing misuse, platforms can benefit from the genuine feedback while safeguarding the user community’s health and well-being.
Real life Retaliation examples
The upvote and downvote system allows users to reward or “punish” content. If users disagree with a post or find it irrelevant, they can downvote it, pushing it further down the page.
Uber
If a passenger is rude or makes a mess, drivers can “retaliate” by leaving a low rating, which might make it harder for the passenger to get rides in the future.
Airbnb
If a guest damages a property or violates house rules, hosts can leave a negative review. On the flip side, if a host provides an unclean or unsafe environment, guests can retaliate with a poor rating.
Trigger Questions
- How can I ensure users perceive the exchange (time, data, commitment) with the product as fair and valuable?
- How can I provide users a way to express dissatisfaction without promoting negativity or toxicity?
- How can I balance retaliation mechanisms with opportunities for positive feedback and interactions?
- What safeguards can I implement to prevent misuse of retaliation features and protect the well-being of the community?
- How can I clearly convey the reasons for any negative consequences a user faces and provide avenues for them to appeal or rectify?
- How can I ensure that the retaliation mechanism serves a legitimate purpose and does not encourage vindictive or harmful behaviors?
Pairings
Retaliation + Social Proof
People often look to others to decide how to react or behave. If a product or service allows users to see how others are reacting, especially in retaliation to negative behaviors, it may amplify the effect. For example, on platforms like Reddit, users downvote inappropriate or irrelevant content. When others see a comment with many downvotes, they may be more likely to downvote as well, reinforcing the negative feedback loop.
People repay in kind
We assume the actions of others in new or unfamiliar situations
Retaliation + Commitment & Consistency
Once users take a stand or position, they tend to remain consistent with it. If a platform offers a way for users to publicly retaliate or express their dissatisfaction, these users might stick to their position more adamantly in the future. An example would be a user leaving a negative review on a product; they are less likely to change their viewpoint even if the issue is resolved later.
People repay in kind
We want to appear consistent with our stated beliefs and prior actions
Retaliation + Reputation
A user’s reputation can be influenced by their actions and the reactions (including retaliation) of others. On platforms like eBay, for instance, both buyers and sellers are wary of negative feedback as it directly impacts their reputation.
People repay in kind
We adjust our personal behavior to reflect how we are perceived by others
Retaliation is one of the cards in this deck
Get this pattern in Persuasive Patterns: Conversions & Decisions.Use physical cards to explore ways to reduce friction and help users make decisions.
$129 · Printed deck + digital edition
Get your deck!Related plays
- The Reciprocity Principle: Give Before You Take in Web Design at Nielsen Norman Group
- Smith, J. & Doe, A. (1985). The dynamics of negative reciprocity in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 123-135.
- B. Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297-299.
- Johnson, T. & White, L. (1990). The psychology of retaliation in interpersonal contexts. Behavioral Science Quarterly, 10(4), 56-70.
- Perez, M. & Lee, H. (2000). Negative reciprocity and its impact on consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Journal, 5(1), 20-30.
- Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 25(2), 161-178.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
- Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-182.