Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to develop a new measure, the Schadenfreude-by-Concern Inventory (SCI), to assess Schadenfreude as a personality trait and to evaluate its reliability and validity. Existing scales developed to measure trait Schadenfreude have not focused on the triggers that lead to the emergence of Schadenfreude. Therefore, in this study, a new scale was developed to measure trait Schadenfreude by focusing on the typical axes of concern (justice-type, rivalry-type, and aggression-type) observed before Schadenfreude arises. A total of 250 Japanese participants from a wide age range responded to the SCI, along with a set of questionnaires assessing belief in a just world, self-esteem, trait envy, group identification tendencies, and an existing trait Schadenfreude scale. Factor analysis revealed that the SCI has a two-factor structure: self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and justice-type Schadenfreude. The correlations between these factors and external variables showed that justice-type Schadenfreude was positively correlated with belief in a just world, while self-oriented-type Schadenfreude was positively correlated with malicious envy and negatively correlated with self-esteem. These results highlight the distinct nature of the two subtypes of Schadenfreude. The measurement of Schadenfreude using SCI may provide insights for future research into how the tendency to experience these two types of Schadenfreude relates to any decision-making and behavior.

Keywords

emotion individual differences personality trait schadenfreude-by-concern inventory validation in Japan

Introduction

Introduction to Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude is a social emotion of passively rejoicing in the misfortune of others (Ben-Ze’ev, 2000). Since this emotion is a type of malice, public statements are avoided and rarely come forward. However, one has a propensity to take pleasure from the misery of others. In fact, there are numerous findings in psychology and cognitive neuroscience that recognize the existence of Schadenfreude (Brigham et al., 1997; Takahashi et al., 2009).

For the past 30 years, research in the field of social psychology has focused on identifying the conditions and situations that produce these emotions (e.g., van Dijk et al., 2006). Wang et al. (2019) reviewed empirical research and proposed a tripartite motivational model. This model suggests that people who rejoice in the misfortune of others are characterized as deviating from the norm, being envious, or belonging to a hostile group. In other words, Schadenfreude is more likely to be evoked by justice, envy, or social identity. Schadenfreude driven by justice is an emotional reaction of ridicule at the misfortune that befell the unjust, because they deserved it. This is called the justice-type Schadenfreude because it resembles a context in which one criticizes those who violate culturally shared norms. Schadenfreude driven by envy rejoices in the failures of others and reduces concerns about self-esteem. This is called the rivalry-type Schadenfreude, because it is based on rivalry in social comparison. Schadenfreude driven by social identity is an emotion that arises from social comparison as well as rivalry-type Schadenfreude. However, it is distinguished from rivalry-type Schadenfreude in that it requires intergroup conflict as a prerequisite for emotional arousal and is treated as an aggressive-type Schadenfreude. According to Wang et al. (2019), these three types of Schadenfreude can be classified in terms of two axes: the dimension in which the emotion arises (whether it arises on an individual basis or on the basis of group relations) and the direction in which the emotion goes (for oneself or for society). In other words, justice-type Schadenfreude occurs on an individual basis and is oriented toward society as a whole; rivalry-type Schadenfreude occurs on an individual basis and emphasizes self-oriented objectives; and aggressive-type Schadenfreude is based on group relations and arises for one’s own benefit. Wang et al. (2019) claim that since these differences in the nature of these Schadenfreude are recognized, it is necessary to treat them differently.

Methods for Measuring Schadenfreude

In measuring Schadenfreude, many previous studies have used the scene assumption method (Pietraszkiewicz, 2013; Smith et al., 1996). For example, Smith et al. (1996) facilitated social comparisons among participants in an experiment in which a fictitious person who was set to attend medical school, was presented in a successful situation (e.g., high grades or playing tennis with an attractive girlfriend). Then, in a later episode, Shill informs the participants that she has fallen into a misfortune (her admission was revoked) because of a misdeed (stealing amphetamines from the laboratory), and has them respond to the degree of Schadenfreude. Such a method provides information about the circumstances and conditions under which the emotion arises, but does not measure whether participants are more likely to feel Schadenfreude as a personality trait. Even if the situation encountered is the same, there may be individual differences in the degree of emotional response. In fact, since Spielberger (1966) argued that we should distinguish between state emotions and trait emotions, anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1970) and envy (Gold, 1996) have come to be considered not only as emotional responses to situations, but also in terms of the ease with which we experience these emotions. In the case of Schadenfreude, taking into account not only the state but also the trait aspect will be useful not only for identifying the factors that trigger the emotion, but also for predicting the motives and behaviors that follow it.

Scales that measure the trait aspects of Schadenfreude have been developed in recent years. The Chronic Schadenfreude Scale (CSS) by Krizan and Johar (2012) is a pioneer in this field. Although the CSS contains items that can measure components that Wang et al. (2019) refer to as rivalry-type Schadenfreude, it does not measure Schadenfreude derived from other aspects. In addition, since the CSS was composed of items that were created on a temporary basis as part of a narcissism study, no formal standardization procedures were followed. The Trait Schadenfreude Scale (TSS) developed by Crysel and Webster (2018) has identified a two-factor structure with reliability and validity: malicious Schadenfreude, which is likely to lead to more suffering in the person toward whom the Schadenfreude is directed, and benign Schadenfreude, which is used as humor in communication situations. However, most of the items in the TSS are ad hoc in terms of the characteristics and position of the person who suffers the misfortune and do not describe the preconditions that brings about the said misfortune. Therefore, it is not easy for people to concretely imagine Schadenfreude as they experience it in their daily lives.

As previously mentioned, the occurrence of Schadenfreude is influenced by the cognitive understanding of the reasons that lead to the misfortune and by the relationship with the person who suffers the misfortune. Therefore, when measuring the trait aspect of Schadenfreude, one cannot ignore the background factors that it evokes. However, no scale has been developed that can measure subtypes of Schadenfreude after specifying the context in which the emotion arises. Clearly describing the reason for the unhappiness and the relationship between the unhappy person and themselves in the item text allows respondents to imagine their experience more realistically. This would provide more meaningful data regarding the trait Schadenfreude and lead to further understanding of the phenomenon. Furthermore, we would be able to examine which people are more likely to experience schadenfreude in which context, and which behavior this emotion lead to. Given that typical antecedents for the elicitation of Schadenfreude have been identified (Smith et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2019), trait Schadenfreude refers to the tendency to experience the emotion in response to such typical situations. Therefore, in this study, we regard trait Schadenfreude as the extent to which individuals are prone to feeling Schadenfreude when placed in such situations, taking into account the typical antecedents of Schadenfreude.

The purpose and hypothesis of this study

The purpose of this study is to develop the Schadenfreude-by-Concern-Inventory (SCI) in a way that relies on the context of Wang et al. ’s (2019) model. In doing so, this study followed the following steps: First, to classify Schadenfreude into three types (justice, rivalry, and aggression), we prepared items with reference to the existing measures of justice, envy, and social identity. The factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity were then examined. To examine the validity, we tested the following five hypotheses.

Previous studies have consistently reported that Schadenfreude is easily evoked in deserved misfortunes (Smith, 2013). Individuals who value the norms of their culture are likely to promote aggressive attitudes toward others who violate them. In other words, the more justice-oriented a person is, the more likely he or she is to rejoice in the misfortune caused by deviation from the norm. There are two different sub-concepts (Belief in Immanent Justice: BIJ and Belief in Ultimate Justice: BUJ) in just world beliefs that are believed to be involved in justice (Maes & Schmitt, 1999). BIJ is the tendency to attribute the cause of a negative event to a past wrongdoing committed by the person in question, with justice inherent in the resulting outcome (Hafer & Bègue, 2005). On the other hand, BUJ is the tendency to believe that the disadvantage suffered due to injustice will be compensated in the future and does not involve the tendency to attribute the cause of the damage (misfortune) to the victim (others who have been unhappy) or to blame the victim for their behavior (Murayama & Miura, 2015). Given the above, justice-type Schadenfreude is predicted to be positively correlated only with intrinsic just-world beliefs, since it is an emotion that rejoices in the misfortune of the unjust with the perception of deservingness (Hypothesis 1).

Previous studies have consistently reported a negative correlation between envy and self-esteem (Sawada & Fujii, 2016; Smith et al., 1999). For individuals with a stable self-image, others are not as important as the indicator of their self-worth, and envy is thought unlikely even if they witness others who are superior to them. Therefore, high self-esteem is predicted to contribute to the suppression of perceived ease of rivalry-type Schadenfreude (Hypothesis 2).

According to Lange and Crusius (2015), the envy subtypes are classified according to their differential effects. Two types are distinguished: malicious envy, which leads to motives aimed at undermining the superior opponent’s position and benign envy, which leads to motives aimed at improving one’s own position. Given these differences in the nature of envy, there should be a positive correlation between susceptibility to rivalry-type Schadenfreude, which is caused by a potential competitor pulling one’s leg, and susceptibility to malicious envy (Hypothesis 3).

We emphasize the superior aspects of the in-group to satisfy our desire for a positive social identity, which sometimes leads to discrimination against the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In other words, the awareness of the existence of hostile external groups strengthens the unity of the internal group. Therefore, it is possible that a sense of belongingness to a group may suggest a positive correlation with the aggressive type (Hypothesis 4).

We also examine the relationship with the existing Schadenfreude scale; the SCI does not look at the benign aspect, which is attempted in the TSS. Thus, the positive correlation with the SCI subfactor, malicious Schadenfreude, is expected to be higher than that with benign Schadenfreude. However, feeling Schadenfreude is likely to be decoupled from a sense of malice, since the righteous tend to rejoice in the misfortune of those who violate the norm. Thus, malicious Schadenfreude may not be associated with justice-type Schadenfreude (Hypothesis 5).

Methods

Procedure

The survey was conducted in December 2021 using an online survey service (Freeasy) provided by I-Bridge Inc. The study used the Directed Questions Scale (hereafter DQS; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014) to detect satisfaction trends in online surveys, adding two items to the survey content and excluding from the analysis the responses of those who violated the DQS even once. DQS is a method for detecting respondents who do not read the questions carefully. Specifically, a question is included in the Likert scale that instructs the respondent to select a specific response (e.g., “For this question, please select ‘1. Not at all applicable’”). It is determined whether the same response as the specified response has been selected. Previous research has shown that the responses of DQS violators disrupt the factor structure of psychological scales (Miura & Kobayashi, 2018). In this study, we used the DQS to detect respondents who did not read the questions carefully in order to improve the quality of the data. In this study, survey participants were recruited twice, and the DQS violation rate was 31% the first time and 14% the second time. The second survey was conducted for those who did not participate in the first survey. This was conducted because the number of participants in this survey did not reach the predetermined number.

Sample size determination and Participants

Regarding the sample size for factor analysis, Kline (1993) argues that 4–10 participants per item are required. If we follow this standard, then for the SCI, which has 21 candidate items, we would need between 84 and 210 participants. In this study, we set the standard as obtaining 210 valid respondents.

Initially, 300 participants were recruited through the online survey service, 93 of them violated the DQS. An additional 50 participants were recruited, 7 of them violated the DQS. These procedures resulted in a total of 250 valid responses (175 males and 75 females). The mean age of the participants was 55.28 years (SD = 12.84). The 250 valid respondents were randomly selected from among the Japanese people living in Japan’s 47 prefectures. The age range of the valid respondents was 20–85 years old. More detailed demographic data is shown in Table 1.¹

Table 1.

Participants’ demographic data (N = 250).

Characteristic	Number (rate)
Nationality
Japanese	250 (100%)
Age’s detail
20’s	8 (3.2)
30’s	19 (7.6)
40’s	50 (20.0)
50’s	79 (31.6)
60’s	53 (21.1)
70’s	32 (12.8)
80’s	6 (2.4)
Occupation
Company employee (full-time)	76 (30.4)
Company employee (contract and temporary staff)	8 (3.2)
Managers and executives	6 (2.4)
Civil servants (excluding teachers)	6 (2.4)
Teacher	1 (0.4)
Physicians and medical professionals	3 (1.2)
Self-employment	20 (8.0)
Liberal profession	5 (2.0)
Part-time job	31 (12.4)
Student	1 (0.4)
Housewife	26 (10.4)
Without an occupation	62 (24.8)
Etc.	5 (2.0)
Marriage
Married	99 (39.6)
Unmarried	151 (60.4)

Respondents who answered all the questions were awarded points (worth approximately 1–11 yen each) that were given within the relevant site via the points site registered by each respondent.

Measures

Candidate items for Schadenfreude-by-concern inventory (SCI)

Prior to the development of the SCI, we first created a list of candidate items for the scale. These candidate items are the items that will be used in this survey, and they are those that have the potential to be selected as final items for the SCI after undergoing quantitative evaluation through factor analysis. The contents of the items were examined while referring to multiple existing scales related to the three typical factors (justice, envy, and social identity) that promote Schadenfreude, as pointed out in previous research. Specifically, the first author used the (a) Enviousness Scale (Sawada & Arai, 2002), (b) Japanese version of the Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (Sawada & Fujii, 2016), (c) Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Kanai, 2013), (d) Japanese version of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Tham et al., 2019), and (e) Japanese version of the Group Self-esteem Scale (Watanabe, 1994), and modified them as appropriate to construct the item expressions. The Group Self-Esteem Scale measures self-assessment of the strength and desirability of social identity (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Content validity was then checked by an experimental and a social psychologist, and the final candidate was determined after repeated revisions for items that were pointed out to be problematic. Two university students who were not informed of the purpose of this study were asked to respond to the final candidate items and check for any unclear items or items with unnatural wording. Each item was rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Note that this study measured individual differences in the ease of feeling Schadenfreude as a trait, not Schadenfreude as a state of emotional response. In other words, Schadenfreude’s personality includes not only emotional experiences but also beliefs and desires that predict joy in the misfortune of others. For this reason, in assessing the content validity, we were mindful of including expressions related to Schadenfreude’s anticipation.²

Japanese version of beliefs in a just world questionnaire (J-BQ)

Maes and Schmitt’s (1999) scale, translated into Japanese by Murayama and Miura (2015), was used in this study. From these items, the Belief in Immanent Justice factor (e.g., “We will see the day when all victims will be compensated for their suffering.” “Those who have suffered badly will one day be compensated.”) and the Belief in Ultimate Justice factor (e.g., “At some point everyone has to pay for their ill deeds.” “Those who plan ill deeds will fall by them.”) were extracted, and each item was rated on a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The descriptive statistics and internal consistency were M = 4.06, SD = 1.02, α = .92, ω = .92, and M = 3.50, SD = 1.10, α = .95, ω = .95, respectively.

Japanese version of the rosenberg self-esteem scale (J-RSS)

A ten-item self-esteem scale (e.g., “I’m satisfied with myself.” “I have a positive attitude towards myself.”) developed by Rosenberg (1965) and translated by Sakurai (2000) was used. Each item is rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (no) to 4 (yes). The descriptive statistics and internal consistency were M = 2.61, SD = 0.62, α = .91, ω = .92.

Japanese version of the Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (J-BeMaS)

We used the Japanese translation (Sawada & Fujii, 2016) of the Benign and Malicious envy Scale (Lange & Crusius, 2015) to measure subtypes (benign and malicious) of dispositional envy. This scale consisted of 5 items for Benign envy (e.g., “I strive to reach other people’s superior achievements.” “Envying others motivates me to accomplish my goals.”) and 5 items for Malicious envy (e.g., “I feel ill will toward people I envy.” “Seeing other people’s achievements makes me resent them.”). Each item was rated on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all applicable) to 6 (very applicable). The descriptive statistics and internal consistency were M = 3.45, SD = 0.89, α = .87, ω = .88, and M = 2.57, SD = 0.90, α = .90, ω = .91, respectively.

General group identication tendency scale (GGITS)

A scale measuring the ease of identification with the group to which one belongs in general (Matsuki & Shimotsukasa, 2020) was used. This scale has twelve items (e.g., “The goals of the group I belong to are also one of my important goals.” “I have a attachment to the group I am currently a member of.”). Each item is rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not applicable) to 5 (applicable). The descriptive statistics and internal consistency were M = 3.29, SD = 0.79, α = .96, ω = .96.

Japanese version of the trait schadenfreude scale (J-TSS)

To measure benign and malicious Schadenfreude traits, we used Crysel and Webster’s (2018) TSS in the Japanese translation (Kato & Fujimori, 2021). This scale consisted of 5 items for Benign Schadenfreude (e.g., “I enjoy watching segments of videos where people fall.” “I enjoy slapstick comedy where characters get hurt.”) and 5 items for Malicious Schadenfreude (e.g., “I feel satisfied when classmates fail a test.” “I secretly feel happy when a friend gets a poor grade on an exam.”).

Each item is rated on a nine-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Descriptive statistics and internal consistency were M = 3.29, SD = 1.37, α = .87, ω = .87 and M = 3.66, SD = 1.47, α = .90, ω = .90, respectively.

Statistical analyses

Item analysis was conducted assuming the theoretically predicted three dimensions. Mardia’s MVN test was then performed prior to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results showed that both multivariate skewness (chi.skew = 5042.69, p < .001) and multivariate kurtosis (z.kurtosis = 45.36, p < .001) were significant, indicating that the data under analysis deviated from a multivariate normal distribution. Therefore, the EFA for initial validation of the factor structure of the SCI was conducted using the maximum likelihood method with robust standard errors (MLR), geomin rotation. Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients for each factor of the SCI were calculated to assess internal consistency. To examine the construct validity of the SCI, correlation coefficients and partial correlation analysis were calculated between the SCI and the external measures (J-BQ, J-RSS, J-BeMaS, GGITS, and J-TSS). Since there was a significant positive correlation between the subscales of the SCI, partial correlation analysis was conducted. Therefore, when examining the correlation between the scales used as validity indicators and “justice-type Schadenfreude”, we calculated the partial correlation coefficient while controlling for “self-oriented-type Schadenfreude”. Similarly, when examining the correlation between other scales and “self-oriented-type Schadenfreude”, we calculated the partial correlation coefficient while controlling for “justice-type Schadenfreude”. When there is a correlation between the subscales of the SCI, when examining the correlation between each subscale and an external variable, there is a possibility that a pseudo-correlation affected by other subscales will be reflected. Finally, t-tests were conducted to examine gender differences in the SCI subscales.

The EFA was conducted by Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). The computation of Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω is done by loading the psych package (Revelle, 2016) on the open-source statistical software R Version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2021). Loading the psych package (Revelle, 2016) on the open-source statistical software R Version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2021). Multivariate normality tests were performed by loading the MVN package (Korkmaz et al., 2014) on R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2021). Other analyses were performed by using the statistical software HAD developed by Shimizu (2016).

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations were explained in writing at the top of the online survey screen, and consent was obtained from all participants. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the first author’s affiliated university (approval number: 2021-25-02).

Results

Item analyses

We conducted an item analysis assuming three dimensions. As shown in Table 2, alpha coefficients ranged from .84 (Aggressive) to .94 (Rivalry). Excluding any of the items did not contribute to an increase in the α coefficient of the subscale. The correlation between each item and the subscale ranged from .65 (Aggressive and Justice) to .88 (Rivalry).

Table 2.

Item analyses.

	Mean (SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis	Item-total correlation	Ordinal alpha if item deleted
Aggressive (α = .87)
Item 1	2.76 (1.08)	0.04	−0.71	.70**	.87
Item 4	2.86 (1.04)	−0.11	−0.72	.73**	.86
Item 7	2.58 (0.95)	0.07	−0.35	.83**	.84
Item 10	2.74 (0.92)	0.02	−0.35	.84**	.84
Item 13	2.41 (0.88)	0.29	−0.09	.82**	.85
Item 16	2.38 (0.91)	0.30	−0.09	.76**	.85
Item 19	3.04 (1.04)	0.01	−0.50	.65**	.88
Justice (α = .90)
Item 2	3.91 (0.80)	−0.78	1.02	.65**	.90
Item 5	3.04 (1.04)	−0.14	−0.45	.75**	.89
Item 8	3.70 (0.95)	−0.61	−0.06	.84**	.87
Item 11	3.65 (1.07)	−0.59	−0.34	.76**	.89
Item 14	3.12 (0.99)	−0.12	−0.18	.85**	.87
Item 17	3.00 (1.03)	−0.05	−0.56	.79**	.88
Item 20	3.50 (1.01)	−0.58	−0.02	.87**	.87
Rivalry (α = .94)
Item 3	2.69 (0.95)	0.11	−0.27	.88**	.93
Item 6	2.61 (0.90)	0.29	0.08	.87**	.93
Item 9	2.47 (0.88)	0.40	0.16	.88**	.93
Item 12	2.67 (1.00)	0.28	−0.18	.88**	.93
Item 15	2.74 (0.96)	0.07	−0.22	.83**	.94
Item 18	2.46 (0.95)	0.41	0.11	.88**	.93
Item 21	2.52 (0.98)	0.36	−0.06	.82**	.93

Structure of SCI

A CFA was performed to see how well the theoretically assumed three-factor model fits the actual data. CFA was performed by loading the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) on R Version 3.6.2 (R Core Team, 2021), an opensource statistical software environment.

The analysis showed that the model fit was not satisfactory (χ² = 645.777, p = .000, CFI = .868, RMSEA = .104 (90% Confidence Intervals (CI) = [.095, .113]), AIC = 10,007.829). This suggested that the structure of the SCI might not be three factors, so the number of factors was explored by referring to the eigenvalues. The eigenvalues were, in order from the first factor, 11.07, 2.61, 0.91, 0.73, 0.59…, suggesting two factors for the Guttman and Scree plot criteria. Since two factors were proposed based on the results of the parallel analysis and the minimum mean partial correlation, the number of factors was specified as two in the EFA (MLR, Geomin rotation). 21 items of the EFA were conducted with two factors specified, and three items had factor loadings of less than 0.50 for any of the factors, indicating that these items had multiple loadings. Therefore, the same factor analysis was conducted after excluding these items. As a result, the first factor consisting of 12 items and the second factor consisting of 6 items were extracted. Specifically, the items that were initially expected to load on each of the rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude factors were comprehensively explained from the first factor. The second factor was then composed of items that were prepared assuming that they would be explained from the justice-type Schadenfreude factor. Since Wang et al. (2019) referred to rivalry-type and aggressive Schadenfreude as self-oriented emotions; we named the first factor corresponding to the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude. The second factor corresponded to the justice-type Schadenfreude proposed by Wang et al. (2019), and is therefore referred to as such in this study. The goodness of fit for this model was acceptable (χ² = 200.123, df = 118, p = .000, CFI = .966, TLI = .955, RMSEA = .053 (90% CI = [.040–.065]), SRMR = .027). Therefore, the most interpretable solution was the two-factor model, with 18 items (two factors) was selected as a candidate for SCI. The inter-factor correlations were significant (r = .49, p < .001). The results of the EFA, descriptive statistics, and excluded items are shown in Table 3.³

Table 3.

Final results of the exploratory factor analysis.

	Item	Factor loadings		Mean (SD)
	Item	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Mean (SD)
Ⅰ	Self-oriented type Schadenfreude.
9	It makes me happy to know that someone with superior traits that I don’t have is being put at a disadvantage.	.95	−.14	2.47 (0.88)
13	They take pleasure in knowing that a group to which they do not belong is inferior to them.	.89	−.12	2.41 (0.88)
3	I wish I could fail at people I envy.	.86	.00	2.69 (0.95)
6	Feel happy inside when someone who has achieved better results than you makes a mistake.	.84	.02	2.61 (0.90)
18	I hope that one day someone who seems to be living a glorious life will be in pain.	.83	.02	2.46 (0.95)
12	I wish people more fortunate than me would have more trouble.	.83	.02	2.67 (1.00)
7	I would like to see unfortunate things happen to people who are hostile to the group to which I belong.	.82	.00	2.58 (0.95)
21	He who is more popular than he is wants to be rejected.	.81	.07	2.52 (0.98)
16	I wish the world would condemn those who think differently from us.	.78	−.10	2.38 (0.91)
10	I’m happy when people who reject the values that my group holds dear fail.	.76	.11	2.74 (0.92)
15	I rejoice when I know that someone I envy is unhappy.	.71	.20	2.74 (0.96)
4	When a player on a team that is a rival to the sports team you are rooting for makes a mistake, you shout for joy in your heart.	.53	.21	2.86 (1.04)
II	Justice type Schadenfreude
8	It’s refreshing to see people who have behaved insanely and caused trouble in society being coddled.	−.05	.86	3.70 (0.95)
20	It’s a nice touch to witness a scene where cheaters are harshly condemned	.03	.85	3.50 (1.01)
14	I am glad for the punishment that has befallen the wrongdoer, even if he suffers more than he should!	.21	.71	3.65 (1.08)
11	When a politician or bureaucrat who has been found to be corrupt is removed from office, we look at them and think, “Suck it up!	.00	.69	3.12 (0.99)
2	I think people who don’t follow the rules get what they deserve when they are punished severely.	−.11	.67	3.91 (0.80)
17	I find it comforting to see someone who has hurt someone else get hurt in the same way.	.27	.61	3.00 (1.03)

Note. The teaching was as follows: “To what extent do the following items apply to you? Please select one option that applies.” All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all applicable; 2 = not applicable; 3 = neither applicable; 4 = applicable; 5 = very applicable). The three excluded items were “1. I find it interesting when misfortunes befall people who belong to groups with which I do not get along” (M = 2.76, SD = 1.08), “5. I find it interesting when I see or hear celebrities who have done in justice being bashed”(M = 3.04, SD = 1.04), “19. I feel happy when a political party I do not support loses an election” (M = 3.04, SD = 1.04).

Internal consistency of SCI

The Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients were high for the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude factor (α = .96, ω = .96), and justice-type Schadenfreude factor (α = .89, ω = .89).

Convergent and discriminant validity of SCI

The correlation coefficients and partial correlation coefficients between the subscales of the SCI and other variables are shown in Table 4. Incidentally, as previously mentioned, all of the external indicators used for SCI verification had acceptable internal consistency.

Table 4.

Correlation and partial correlation coefficients between SCI and J-BQ, J-RSS, J-BeMaS, GGITS, and J-TSS.

	Justice	Justice (controlled by the self oriented)	Self oriented	Self oriented (controlled by the justice)
J-BQ-BUJ	−.17* [−.29, −.05]	−.11 [−.23, .02]	−.15* [−.27, −.03]	−.07 [−.20, .05]
J-BQ-BIJ	−.11 [−.01, .24]	.22*** [.10, .34]	−.13 [−.25, −.01]	−.23*** [−.34, −.11]
J-RSS	−.15* [−.27, −.03]	−.01 [−.14, .11]	−.27*** [−.38, −.15]	−.22*** [−.34, −.10]
J-BeMaS-Benign envy	−.09 [−.03, −.22]	.07 [−.06, .19]	.06 [−.06, −.19]	.02 [−.11, .14]
J-BeMaS-Malicious envy	.26*** [−.14, −.37]	−.26 *** [−.38, −.14]	.76*** [−.70, −.81]	.76*** [−.70, .81]
GGITS	−.21** [−.32, −.09]	−.12 [−.24, .01]	−.21*** [−.32, −.09]	−.12 [−.24, .00]
J-TSS-Benign Schadenfreude	.22** [.10, .33]	−.08 [−.20, .05]	.52*** [.42, .60]	.48*** [.38, .57]
J-TSS-Malicious Schadenfreude	.33*** [.22, .44]	−.07 [−.19, .06]	.70*** [.63, .76]	.66*** [.58, .72]

Note. Justice = justice type Schadenfreude; self oriented = self oriented type Schadenfreude; J-BQ-BUJ = The Japanese version of Beliefs in a just world Questionnaire-Belief in Ultimate Justice; J-BQ-BIJ = The Japanese version of Beliefs in a just world Questionnaire-Belief in Immanent Justice; J-RSS = The Japanese version of Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale; J-BeMaS-Benign envy = The Japanese version of Benign and Malicious envy Scale-Benign envy; J-BeMaS-Malicious envy = The Japanese version of Benign and Malicious envy Scale-Malicious envy; GGITS = General Group Identification Tendency Scale; J-TSS-Benign Schadenfreude = The Japanese version of Trait Schadenfreude Scale-Benign Schadenfreude; J-TSS-Malicious Schadenfreude = The Japanese version of Trait Schadenfreude Scale-Malicious Schadenfreude.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Figures in parentheses indicate 95% confidence intervals.

In the association between the justice-type Schadenfreude factor of SCI and Belief in Immanent Justice, a single correlation was not significant (r = .11, p = .072, 95% CI [−.01, .24]), but a positive correlation was significant in the partial correlation after self-oriented-type Schadenfreude control (r = .22, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .34]). However, neither the correlation coefficient nor the partial correlation coefficient between the justice-type Schadenfreude and Belief in Ultimate Justice was significant. Thus, Hypothesis 1 (justice-type Schadenfreude and Belief in Immanent Justice will be positively correlated.) was supported.

From the factor analysis described above, rivalry-type and aggressive-type Schadenfreude, as claimed in the theoretical model of Wang et al. (2019), were integrated into self-oriented type Schadenfreude factor, so hypotheses 2–5 were examined for correlations between this and the other variables. In other words, based on the results of the EFA, we decided to replace the rivalry-type and aggressive-type Schadenfreude in Hypotheses 2–5 with self-oriented-type Schadenfreude.

First, the negative correlation between self-oriented type Schadenfreude of SCI and Self-esteem was significant, both before (r = −.27, p < .001, 95% CI [−.38, −.15]) and after (r = −.22, p < .001, 95% CI [−.34, −.10]) controlling for justice type Schadenfreude. Thus, Hypothesis 2 (self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and self-esteem will show a negative correlation.) was supported. Next, we examined the correlation between the self-centered-type Schadenfreude and benign and malicious envy. The results showed no significant correlation with benign envy (r = .06, p = .311, 95% CI [−.06, .18]) and a strong significant positive correlation with malicious envy (r = .76, p < .001, 95% CI [.70, .81]), as in Hypothesis 3 (There is probably a positive correlation between self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and malicious envy.). Incidentally, self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and malicious envy showed a strong and significant positive correlation (r = .76, p < .001, 95% CI [.70, .81]) even after controlling for justice-type Schadenfreude. On the other hand, focusing on the correlation and partial correlation coefficients between self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and General Group Identification Tendency, contrary to hypothesis 4 (The self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and the General Group Identification Tendency will be positively correlated.), the negative correlation was significant for the single correlation (r = −.21, p < .01, 95% CI [−.33, −.09]), and the partial correlation was not correlated (r = −.12, p = .057, 95% CI [−.24, .00]).

A significant positive correlation was found between the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and benign and malicous Schadenfreude (benign Schadenfreude: r = .52, p < .001, 95% CI [.42, .60]; malicious Schadenfreude: r = .70, p < .001, 95%CI [.63, .76]). The positive correlation remained significant after controlling for justice-type Schadenfreude (benign Schadenfreude: r = .48, p < .001, 95% CI [.38, .57]; malicious Schadenfreude: r = .66, p < .001, 95% CI [.58, .72]). Regarding the correlation between the justice-type Schadenfreude and benign and malicious Schadenfreude, the correlation was significant before controlling for the self-oriented-type-type Schadenfreude (benign Schadenfreude: r = .22, p < .01, 95% CI [−.03, .22]; malicious schadenfreude: r = .33, p < .001, 95% CI [ .14, .37]). However, after controlling for self-oriented-type Schadenfreude, the correlation disappeared (benign Schadenfreude: r = −.08, p = .219, 95% CI [−.20, .05]; malicious Schadenfreude: r = −.07, p = .308, 95% CI [−.19, .06]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 (self-oriented-type schadenfreude is more strongly correlated with malicious schadenfreude than with benign schadenfreude.) was supported.⁴

Gender difference

Welch’ t test was conducted to examine gender differences in the SCI subscales. No significant differences were found between males (M = 2.61, SD = 0.77) and females (M = 2.57, SD = .0.80) for self-oriented-type Schadenfreude (t (135.50) = 0.38, p = .70, Cohen’s d = 0.05), and no significant difference was found between males (M = 3.49, SD = 0.79) and females (M = 3.46, SD = .0.77) for justice-type Schadenfreude (t (144.70) = 0.28, p = . 78, Cohen’s d = 0.04).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop an SCI to measure the Schadenfreude trait, typified into three categories based on the preconditions for its occurrence and the model suggested by Wang et al. (2019), and to examine its reliability and validity. The items comprising the SCI were rated by experimental and social psychologists to measure personality with Schadenfreude tendencies and were judged to have content validity. An EFA conducted to initially validate the factor structure of the SCI did not yield results in support of the predicted three factors. The SCI was shown to have a two-factor structure consisting of a “self-oriented-type Schadenfreude” factor (12 items) and a “justice-type Schadenfreude” factor (6 items). In other words, the rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude suggested by Wang et al. (2019) were explained by the same latent variable without distinction. There are two possible reasons for this result: (a) incompatibility of the three-factor model itself, and (b) limitations of the measurement method.

Factor structure of the SCI

The incompatibility of the three-factor model itself means, in other words, that rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude are not distinct concepts to begin with. This issue is particularly important when focusing on the functions of emotions. As noted by Wang et al. (2019), the justice-type Schadenfreude has a different emotional direction than the other two. It functions for the benefit of society as a whole, whereas rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude are emotions brought about by social comparison and both function to restore self-esteem and self-exaltation. From an evolutionary perspective, emotion is a system that enhances individual fitness (Cosmides & Tooby, 2000). It has been noted that social status (Gilbert, 1990), which facilitates access to all resources, and cooperative behavior beyond kinship (Trivers, 1971) were important for human survival and reproductive success. At the same time as our minds have been designed to compete with rivals and seek social status, they have also evolved to cooperate with others. The two survival tasks (surviving social competition and maintaining social order) are important from the perspective of evolutionary adaptation, and when we perceive that a threatened survival task has been restored, we may experience Schadenfreude. If so, rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude would correspond to social status, and justice-type Schadenfreude to cooperative behavior, and from this perspective, the results of this study appear to be reasonable. However, the above interpretations are only speculative, and further studies are needed to determine whether social psychological theories and data can be explained by evolutionary psychology.

In terms of the limitations of the measurement method, the present results might reflect the difficulty of measuring whether emotions occur on an individual or group basis in a questionnaire. According to Wang et al. (2019), the difference between rivalry- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude lies in whether Schadenfreude is caused by comparison between individuals or assumes comparison between groups. In the present study, items that were prepared with the expectation that they would be explained by the aggressive-type schadenfreude factor were expressed, for example, “group,” “political party,” and “sports team,” and were qualitatively differentiated from items that questioned Schadenfreude through individual comparison (e.g., “jealous person” and “person with superior characteristics”). However, even if these item expressions were written in the question text, it is not certain that they would have imagined the psychological experiences that occur in everyday life. Research on the distinction between in- and out-groups has been conducted through experimental studies. For instance, Tajfel et al. (1971), who conducted a pioneering study on differences in behavior toward in- and out-group members, had experimental participants perform a test for group division (e.g., judging preferences between two types of abstract images on a screen) to increase their sense of belonging to an in-group. When the sense of belonging to an in-group increases, its superior aspects are emphasized (in-group bias), which tends to discriminate against the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Such intergroup dynamics can only be embodied by experimentally categorizing groups. Studies showing that people are more likely to feel Schadenfreude in response to out-group misfortunes have also been conducted experimentally in ways that specifically mirror the out-group (e.g., Cikara et al., 2011). If the reason for the integration of rival- and aggressive-type Schadenfreude into one dimension is the limitations of the measurement method, future research should return to the discussion of whether questionnaires can measure intergroup dynamics and accumulate methodological knowledge.

Validity of the SCI

Next, we discuss the relationship between SCI and external measures. Consistent with theoretical expectations, justice-type Schadenfreude was positively correlated with Belief in Immanent Justice and not with Belief in Ultimate Justice. People tend to experience Schadenfreude when they judge that the misfortune that befell another person was based on that person’s unethical behavior (Smith, 2013). According to Murayama and Miura (2015), the higher a person’s level of internalized fairness beliefs, the stronger their tendency to punish perpetrators. In light of this, the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude could lead to aggressive behavior. Moreover, the act of rejoicing a person’s misfortune is less likely to be negatively evaluated by other group members when it is in accordance with culturally shared standards (Watts, 2008). In other words, the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude is likely to be tolerated by the group. Therefore, it is assumed that the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude spreads easily within the group. Clarifying these points would be beneficial for further strengthening the validity of justice-type Schadenfreude. Future research is expected to incorporate not only cross-sectional survey research using interindividual correlations but also research methods that consider the influence of group dynamics.

Interestingly, Belief in Immanent Justice is negatively correlated with self-oriented-type Schadenfreude factor with and without control of justice-type Schadenfreude factor. This result might be due to the fact that it was evaluated as evil and the Belief in Immanent Justice as pure-hearted. Self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and Belief in Immanent Justice differ in that the former is an emotion that rejoices in one’s own benefits at the expense of others, while the latter refers to the tendency to believe that one’s benefits at the expense of others will eventually be made up. Those who want the world to be just and will not tolerate evil that threatens it may be less likely to agree with self-oriented-type Schadenfreude’s items, which tend to give an impression of selfishness and self-centeredness.

Self-oriented-type Schadenfreude, as expected, correlated negatively with Self-esteem and positively with malicious envy. According to Takahashi et al. (2009), who used fMRI to elucidate the neural basis of envy, the brain pain system is activated when humans experience envy. Self-oriented-type Schadenfreude may function to compensate for perceived deficiencies and distress in comparison to superior others. A meta-analysis of the association between envy subtypes and Schadenfreude also suggests that Schadenfreude is strongly positively correlated with malicious envy (Lange et al., 2018). Since self-oriented-type Schadenfreude is a pleasant feeling aroused by misfortune that befalls a person who is the object of envy, the positive correlation between malignant envy and self-oriented-type Schadenfreude is also consistent with theoretical predictions. And self-oriented-type Schadenfreude can be rephrased as a personality prone to deriving pleasure from the misfortune of a person who is the object of envy. Therefore, the positive correlation between malicious envy and the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude factor aligns with theoretical predictions. Additionally, since self-oriented-type Schadenfreude is based on envy, the negative correlation with self-esteem, which is known to be inversely correlated with envy, also makes sense.

Hypothesis 4 was that Schadenfreude, due to social identity, would be positively correlated with General Group Identification Tendency. The lack of a positive correlation between self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and group identification tendency did not support Hypothesis 4. As noted above, factor analysis did not discriminate between rival- and aggressive-type-Schadenfreude, so it was not possible to distinguish whether Schadenfreude occurred between individuals or based on group relationships. In particular, if the reason for this is to be sought in the limitations of the measurement method, it is possible that it was difficult to measure the psychological dynamics of the group dimension that affected the results. Therefore, items designed to measure the characteristics that occur between groups may not accurately measure the pre-assumed meanings. Hypothesis 4 may have been incorrectly conceived, even if they did not cancel out. For example, one study measured the emotional reactions of enthusiastic baseball fans to situations in which a team other than the one they cheer to make a mistake (Cikara et al., 2011). The experimental collaborators, baseball fans, showed a strong joy response when they witnessed the failure of the rival team (e.g., the Red Sox in the case of Yankees fans), indicating the presence of social identity-derived Schadenfreude in the intergroup struggle. At the same time, however, it became clear that there was little joy in witnessing the failure of a non-rival team. This can be seen as a corollary that what played an important role in arousing Schadenfreude was not a sense of belonging to the team one was rooting for, but hostility toward the rival team. The General Group Identification Tendency (Matsuki & Shimotsukasa, 2020) used in this study measures the tendency to identify with the in-group in general and does not provide information on the tendency to have hostile attitudes toward the out-group. Moreover, this scale is composed of items that easily evoke positive impressions. Considering this point, the finding in this study that the tendency for group identity is negatively correlated with the tendency to experience self-oriented-type Schadenfreude makes sense. In the future, we must examine the nature of Schadenfreude brought about by social identity, not only in terms of belonging to an in-group, but also in terms of hostility toward an out-group and stereotypical attitudes.

The fact that the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude factor of the SCI correlated positively with the J-TSS, an existing measure of Schadenfreude traits, provides support for the validity of the SCI. Of particular importance is the high positive correlation with malicious Schadenfreude, which is supposed to follow the definition of Schadenfreude in previous studies. Kato and Fujimori (2021) have shown that individuals with a higher tendency to feel malicious Schadenfreude are less likely to exhibit empathic concern for others. This suggests that a personality, which is prone to experiencing self-oriented-type Schadenfreude, may be associated with an attitude that disregards the interests and rights of others. However, in this study, we were unable to examine it as a possible factor in the interpersonal behavior index. Future research should incorporate, for example, other-derogatory behavior (e.g., spreading bad rumors) as a predictor variable in the analysis to determine if it is a trait that leads to behaviors that inhibit the rights of others.

It is interesting to note that the partial correlation between the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude and malicious Schadenfreude is not significant. According to Boehm (2012), ridiculing deviant individuals not only socially excludes them but also prevents people with similar traits from engaging in the same deviant behavior. It may be because of these effects that the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude is less likely to be perceived as outright malice. In a study dealing with Schadenfreude caused by feelings of envy (Sawada, 2008), it was revealed that guilt contributes to the arousal or suppression of the expression of Schadenfreude in women. However, even a guilt-prone person may not suppress the arousal or expression of Schadenfreude if it originates from justice rather than envy. In the future, it will be necessary to examine whether individuals who are less likely to experience self-oriented-type Schadenfreude and justice-type Schadenfreude are more prone to feeling guilt. If guilt only suppresses the tendency to experience justice-type Schadenfreude, it could also serve as evidence for the validity of the SCI.

Gender differences in SCI

The present results showed no gender differences in the SCI subscale. However, focusing on the actual process of generating the status Schadenfreude, it is possible that the context of emotional arousal may differ between men and women. Both men and women experience Schadenfreude more strongly when the person who has suffered the misfortune is of the same gender than when the person is of the opposite gender, but women are more likely to experience Schadenfreude in response to a decrease in physical attractiveness of the same gender and men in response to a decrease in social status of the same gender (van Dijk et al., 2015). Future research would also be beneficial in examining the detailed mechanisms by which an individual’s inherent tendency to experience Schadenfreude predicts how state Schadenfreude, which varies depending on the context, is evoked. In this study, as a result of random sampling, the proportion of male participants was higher than that of female participants. Since Welch’s test showed no significant differences between genders on both factors of the SCI, and the effect size was extremely low, it is unlikely that the imbalance in the number of participants had a significant impact on the results of this study. However, when considering factors such as age, social class, and place of residence, it is possible that differences in response tendencies for each factor of the SCI may emerge (i.e., young men in competitive environments may score higher on self-oriented Schadenfreude compared to others). Therefore, future research on the SCI should ideally consider balancing the number of respondents across social class, place of residence, age, and gender when conducting the survey.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. SCI is a scale that measures the susceptibility to Schadenfreude as a personality trait, but in this study, we did not examine its retest reliability. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty from the data in this study that the trait Schadenfreude that stabilize within individuals can be measured. Therefore, examining the reliability of the SCI from the perspective of stability will be an issue for the future. Another important issue would be to verify the measurement invariance of SCI. In this study, we examined the structure, reliability, and validity of the SCI based on data from Japanese people of a wide range of ages (from their 20s to their 80s). However, the ease of experiencing Schadenfreude may differ depending on age and place of residence. For example, it is possible that young people living in competitive urban centers would score higher on the self-oriented-type Schadenfreude. Further study is needed in this regard, such as obtaining data from different samples and conducting a simultaneous multigroup analysis using such data.

Moreover, when treating Schadenfreude as a trait variable, careful discussion is necessary regarding its differences from low agreeableness. In particular, another scale measuring trait Schadenfreude (TSS) has revealed a weak to moderate negative correlation between Schadenfreude and agreeableness (Crysel & Webster, 2018; Kato & Fujimori, 2021). Based on this, trait Schadenfreude appears to reflect a lack of agreeableness. However, as mentioned earlier, trait Schadenfreude is ultimately the tendency to experience an emotion in response to specific situations and is not necessarily synonymous with low agreeableness. For example, individuals who tend to value harmony with others may be more likely to feel joy in situations where norm violators receive punishment (i.e., they may score higher on justice-oriented Schadenfreude). In this way, the role of agreeableness may vary depending on the context in which Schadenfreude arises. However, since this study did not quantify agreeableness, further examination of this point will be necessary in the future.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, this research is significant in that it has provided a measurement tool that can be used in future studies of Schadenfreude. In this study, we attempted to evaluate Schadenfreude not from the perspective of a state-like emotional reaction, but from the viewpoint of a personality trait. This approach is expected to not only clarify the conditions under which Schadenfreude is more likely to be triggered, as examined in previous studies, but also enable the prediction of motivations and behaviors associated with this emotion. In existing scales for measuring trait Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude is distinguished into benign Schadenfreude, where harm to the social relationship with the target is unlikely, and malicious Schadenfreude, which is more likely to cause harm (Crysel & Webster, 2018). The SCI developed in this study measures the susceptibility to trait Schadenfreude, taking into account the typical triggers or points of interest that precede the emergence of Schadenfreude. Therefore, it can be considered unique in that it allows for the quantification of susceptibility to Schadenfreude in relation to specific events and situational contexts. Schadenfreude, if not properly managed, can lead to harmful behaviors that unjustly degrade others (e.g., online defamation, malicious gossip). Measuring Schadenfreude while considering the differences in the contexts preceding the emotional response is valuable for uncovering how these emotions are linked to specific behaviors. Understanding these mechanisms is expected to provide important insights for clinical practices aimed at reducing problem behaviors potentially related to Schadenfreude.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development and initial validation of the Schadenfreude-by-concern inventory in a Japanese sample

Supplemental Material for Development and initial validation of the Schadenfreude-by-concern inventory in a Japanese sample by Shinya Kato and Akihiro Izumi in Personality Science

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development and initial validation of the Schadenfreude-by-concern inventory in a Japanese sample

Supplemental Material for Development and initial validation of the Schadenfreude-by-concern inventory in a Japanese sample by Shinya Kato and Akihiro Izumi in Personality Science

Footnotes

Author Note

Atsushi Oshio was the handling editor.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr Ayaka Nakai (NTT Communication Science Laboratories) and Dr Shota Noda (Philipps-Universität Marburg) for their valuable advice in the preparation of this paper.

Author contributions

Shinya Kato: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, and Writing - review & editing.

Akihiro Izumi: Supervision, Validation.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Correction (May 2025):

This article was updated to correct the sign on values in Tables 2 and 3.

Ethics approval statement

ORCID iD

Shinya Kato

Data accessibility statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online. Depending on the article type, these usually include a Transparency Checklist, a Transparent Peer Review File, and optional materials from the authors.

Notes

References

Ben-Ze’ev

(2000). The subtlety of emotions. MIT Press.

Boehm

(2012). Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. Basic Books.

Brigham

Kelso

K. A.

Jackson

M. A.

Smith

R. H.

(1997). The roles of invidious comparisons and deservingness in sympathy and Schadenfreude. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1903_6

Cikara

Botvinick

M. M.

Fiske

S. T.

(2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22(3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667

Cosmides

Tooby

(2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Lewis

Haviland-Jones

J. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 91–115). Guilford Press.

Crysel

L. C.

Webster

G. D.

(2018). Schadenfreude and the spread of political misfortune. PLoS One, 13(9), Article e0201754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201754

Gilbert

(1990). Changes: Rank, status and mood. In Fischer

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), On the move: The psychology of change and transition (pp. 33–52). Wiley.

Gold

B. T.

(1996). Enviousness and its relationship to maladjustment and psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00081-5

Hafer

C. L.

Bègue

(2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128

10.

Kanai

(2013). Moral origins engraved in the brain: Why do people seek the good? Iwanami Shoten. (In Japanese, translated by the author of this article).

11.

Kato

Fujimori

(2021). Development, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the Trait Schadenfreude Scale (J-TSS). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 30(2), 70–79. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.30.2.4

12.

Kline

(1993). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.

13.

Korkmaz

Göksülük

Zararsiz

G. Ö. K. M. E. N.

(2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031

14.

Krizan

Johar

(2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1415–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x

15.

Lange

Crusius

(2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564959

16.

Lange

Weidman

A. C.

Crusius

(2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for an integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and Schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000118

17.

Luhtanen

Crocker

(1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006

18.

Maes

Schmitt

(1999). More on ultimate and immanent justice: Results from the research project “Justice as a problem within reunified Germany”. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022039624976

19.

Maniaci

M. R.

Rogge

R. D.

(2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008

20.

Matsuki

Shimotsukasa

(2020). Development and validation of a general group identification tendency scale. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 29(2), 47–49. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.29.2.1

21.

Miura

Kobayashi

(2018). Influence of satisficing on online survey responses. Kodo Keiryogaku, 45(1), 204–210. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12223

22.

Murayama

Miura

(2015). Derogating victims and dehumanizing perpetrators: Function of two types of beliefs in a just world. Shinrigaku Kenkyu: Japanese Journal of Psychology, 86(1), 1–9. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.86.13069

23.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(2017). Mplus user's guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user's guide. Muthén & Muthén.

24.

Pietraszkiewicz

(2013). Schadenfreude and just world belief. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(3), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12020

25.

R Core Team . (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

26.

Revelle

(2016). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research [Computer software]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.

27.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

28.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

29.

Sakurai

(2000). Investigation of the Japanese version of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale. Bulletin of Tsukuba Developmental and Clinical Psychology, 12, 65–71. (In Japanese).

30.

Sawada

(2008). The role of envy and personality traits on schadenfreude: Links with guilt, self-esteem, and narcissism. The Japanese Journal of Research on Emotion, 16(1), 36–48. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.4092/jsre.16.36

31.

Sawada

Arai

(2002). Dispositional envy, domain importance, and obtainability of desired objects: Selection of strategies for coping with envy. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(2), 246–256. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.50.2_246

32.

Sawada

Fujii

(2016). Do envious people show better performance?: Focusing on the function of benign envy as personality trait. Shinrigaku Kenkyu: Japanese Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 198–204. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.87.15316

33.

Shimizu

(2016). An introduction to the statistical free software HAD: Suggestions to improve teaching, learning and practice data analysis. Journal of Media, Information and Communication, 1, 59–73.

34.

Smith

R. H.

(2013). The joy of pain: Schadenfreude and the dark side of human nature. Oxford University Press.

35.

Smith

R. H.

Parrott

W. G.

Diener

E. F.

Hoyle

R. H.

Kim

S. H.

(1999). Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992511008

36.

Smith

R. H.

Powell

C. A.

Combs

D. J.

Schurtz

D. R.

(2009). Exploring the when and why of Schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x

37.

Smith

R. H.

Turner

T. J.

Garonzik

Leach

C. W.

Urch-Druskat

Weston

C. M.

(1996). Envy and Schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222005

38.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1966). The effects of anxiety of complex learning and academic achievement. In Spielberger

C. D.

(Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–20). Academic Press.

39.

Spielberger

C. D.

Gorsuch

Lushene

(1970). The state trait anxiety inventory (STAI) manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

40.

Tajfel

Billig

M. G.

Bundy

R. P.

Flament

(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

41.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), Social Psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks-Cole.

42.

Takahashi

Kato

Matsuura

Mobbs

Suhara

Okubo

(2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science, 323(5916), 937–939. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165604

43.

Tham

Y. J.

Hashimoto

Schmitt

Karasawa

(2019). Development of a Japanese version of the justice sensitivity inventory (JSI-J). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 90(5), 503–512. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.90.18234

44.

Trivers

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755

45.

van Dijk

W. W.

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

Goslinga

Nieweg

Gallucci

(2006). When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy and Schadenfreude. Emotion, 6(1), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.156

46.

van Dijk

W. W.

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

Smith

R. H.

(2015). Schadenfreude as a mate-value‐tracking mechanism: Replication and extension of Colyn and Gordon (2013). Personal Relationships, 22(2), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1111.pere.12081

47.

Wang

Lilienfeld

O. S.

Rochat

(2019). Schadenfreude deconstructed and reconstructed: A tripartite motivational model. New Ideas in Psychology, 52, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.09.002

48.

Watanabe

(1994). An attempt to construct the Japanese collective self-esteem scale. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 104–113. (In Japanese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.14966/jssp.KJ00003724634

49.

Watts

A. E.

(2008). Laughing at the world: Schadenfreude, social identity. And American media. Northwestern University culture (unpublished dissertation).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

0.10 MB