Retaliatory rudeness can be viewed as more right and moral than initiating conflict: Cornell study. (AI generated image)
New research from Cornell University suggests that people do not judge all rude behaviour the same way. The way rudeness is perceived depends heavily on whether it starts a conflict or comes as a response to someone else’s rude action.
The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, found that rude replies or retaliatory rudeness are often viewed as more acceptable, just, and even ethical compared to rudeness that initiates a dispute.
According to the study, when someone responds rudely after being provoked, participants judged that behaviour less harshly. In many cases, such retaliatory rudeness was considered as acceptable as responding calmly.
Professor Merrick Osborne, assistant professor of organizational behavior in Cornell’s Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School and first author of the study, explained that people tend to see retaliatory rudeness as a way of upholding social norms and making the original wrongdoer realise their mistake.
“People prefer retaliatory incivility to an instigator’s incivility, seeing it as more right, just and moral,” Osborne said. “Although the degree of incivility is the same, we theorize that, in retaliation, it’s seen as helping to protect a group’s norms and establish to the instigator that they did something wrong.”
Another set of experiments looked at sports situations. Hockey fans rated players from their favourite team as more virtuous when they responded aggressively to an opponent’s violent foul, compared to when a player started a fight without any provocation. Similar results were seen in baseball scenarios involving retaliatory beanballs.
The researchers also tested workplace email exchanges. An uncivil reply (“Shut up, no one wants to hear what you have to say”) was rated no more negatively than a neutral reply when it came in response to rude criticism.
Osborne noted that while politeness still carries greater social value, there can be some social value in acting uncivilly when it is clearly retaliatory.
The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, found that rude replies or retaliatory rudeness are often viewed as more acceptable, just, and even ethical compared to rudeness that initiates a dispute.
Key findings from the five-experiment study
Researchers conducted five separate experiments with nearly 850 participants to understand how people evaluate rude behaviour in different contexts.According to the study, when someone responds rudely after being provoked, participants judged that behaviour less harshly. In many cases, such retaliatory rudeness was considered as acceptable as responding calmly.
Professor Merrick Osborne, assistant professor of organizational behavior in Cornell’s Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School and first author of the study, explained that people tend to see retaliatory rudeness as a way of upholding social norms and making the original wrongdoer realise their mistake.
“People prefer retaliatory incivility to an instigator’s incivility, seeing it as more right, just and moral,” Osborne said. “Although the degree of incivility is the same, we theorize that, in retaliation, it’s seen as helping to protect a group’s norms and establish to the instigator that they did something wrong.”
Real-world examples from the experiments
In one experiment, participants were shown scenarios similar to Reddit comment threads. When someone made an offensive comment and another user responded rudely, the rude reply received significantly more respect and admiration. Participants were more than seven times more likely to upvote such responses.Another set of experiments looked at sports situations. Hockey fans rated players from their favourite team as more virtuous when they responded aggressively to an opponent’s violent foul, compared to when a player started a fight without any provocation. Similar results were seen in baseball scenarios involving retaliatory beanballs.
The researchers also tested workplace email exchanges. An uncivil reply (“Shut up, no one wants to hear what you have to say”) was rated no more negatively than a neutral reply when it came in response to rude criticism.
Important clarification from researchers
The researchers were careful to point out that the study does not encourage rude behaviour. Instead, it highlights that context plays a crucial role in how people perceive and evaluate actions — something that earlier research on rudeness had largely overlooked.Osborne noted that while politeness still carries greater social value, there can be some social value in acting uncivilly when it is clearly retaliatory.
