We’ve all heard the advice: “Let it go.” “Living well is the best revenge.” “Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” The cultural consensus seems clear—revenge is toxic, counterproductive, and ultimately harms us more than it helps. But is this wisdom actually supported by evidence, or is it more of a comforting platitude we tell ourselves?
The truth is considerably more nuanced than the simple morality tales suggest.For decades, psychological research has explored whether expressing anger and seeking retribution provides genuine relief or merely perpetuates cycles of bitterness. The famous “catharsis hypothesis,” dating back to Freud and even to Aristotle, proposed that venting anger releases it like steam from a pressure valve. Many studies in the late 20th century seemed to debunk this entirely, showing that activities like punching pillows or screaming actually increased aggression rather than diminishing it.
But here’s what those studies missed: there’s a fundamental difference between mindless venting and proportional, targeted response to genuine wrongdoing.
Recent research has revealed something interesting. When people experience actual injustice—not just frustration or anger, but legitimate harm from someone who violated social norms—a measured response can indeed provide psychological relief. The key distinctions are proportionality, legitimacy, and closure. When someone who genuinely wronged you faces appropriate consequences, whether through your actions or through systems of justice, your brain’s reward centers actually activate. Studies using neuroimaging have shown that witnessing punishment of norm violators triggers dopamine release and activity in the striatum, regions associated with satisfaction and reward.
This isn’t about mindless rage or disproportionate retaliation. It’s about the human need for fairness and restoration of balance. When we’ve been wronged and do nothing, we often ruminate endlessly on the injustice. The situation remains unresolved in our minds, an open loop that our brains keep returning to. A controlled, proportionate response can provide closure that simply “letting it go” sometimes cannot.
Consider the distinction between healthy and unhealthy forms of response to wrongdoing. Unhealthy revenge is obsessive, disproportionate, and focused on inflicting maximum harm regardless of the original offense. It escalates conflicts and traps people in cycles of retaliation. But controlled response to injustice—whether that’s confronting someone who mistreated you, pursuing legitimate legal remedies, or engaging in proportionate social consequences—can actually facilitate moving forward rather than remaining stuck.
There’s also an important social function to proportionate response that purely internal forgiveness cannot achieve. When wrongdoing goes entirely without consequence, it fails to establish boundaries and may even enable continued harmful behavior. Sometimes standing up for yourself, even if it involves some form of “getting back at” someone who harmed you, teaches both you and others that you won’t accept mistreatment. This can be empowering and can contribute to self-respect in ways that purely passive acceptance cannot.
The distinction between cathartic response and destructive revenge often comes down to whether you’re seeking restoration or escalation. Are you trying to rebalance the scales or to tip them wildly in your favor? Are you responding proportionately to a genuine wrong or manufacturing grievances to justify cruelty? Are you acting from a place of self-respect or from a place of ongoing hatred?Traditional wisdom about forgiveness also often ignores power dynamics. It’s notable that marginalized groups are frequently counseled to forgive, to turn the other cheek, to be the bigger person, while their grievances go unaddressed. In these contexts, the social pressure to forgo any form of response to injustice can actually perpetuate harm and prevent necessary accountability.
None of this is to say that revenge should be our default response to every slight, or that we should abandon ideals of forgiveness and moving forward. Proportionality matters enormously. The person who cut you off in traffic doesn’t deserve to have their life ruined, and the friend who forgot your birthday doesn’t warrant a severed relationship. Most minor frustrations are indeed better released through perspective-taking and letting go.
But when we’ve experienced genuine harm—betrayal, exploitation, cruelty—the psychological research suggests that some form of response, properly calibrated, may actually be healthier than simply swallowing our anger and pretending everything is fine. The relief comes not from the suffering of others but from the restoration of fairness, the assertion of our worth, and the closure of an otherwise endless loop of rumination.
The real wisdom isn’t “never seek revenge” or “always let it go.” It’s knowing the difference between proportionate response that restores balance and destructive retaliation that perpetuates harm. It’s understanding when standing up for yourself serves your healing and when it only deepens your wounds. And it’s recognizing that sometimes, the healthiest response to injustice isn’t transcendent forgiveness but simple, measured accountability.
