Spite is one of the most paradoxical aspects of human behavior—it leads people to harm others even when it comes at their own expense. While this behavior may seem irrational, Spite by Simon McCarthy-Jones explores its deeper psychological and societal roots, showing that spite can be both destructive and a mechanism for enforcing fairness. By examining studies on economic decision-making, neuroscience, social dynamics, and even the role of antidepressants in regulating emotions, McCarthy-Jones presents a compelling argument that spite is not just an anomaly but an ingrained part of human nature.
The Ultimatum Game and Economic Decision-Making
Psychologists have long studied how and why people act spitefully. One of the most well-known experiments in this area is the Ultimatum Game, which reveals how people often reject financial offers they perceive as unfair, even when it results in personal loss. In a 1977 experiment in Cologne, researchers found that half of the participants rejected offers of $20 or less from a $100 pot. In a later study, 75% turned down $10 from the same total, and nearly half refused even $30, showing a strong preference for fairness over self-interest.
Further studies demonstrate that spiteful decision-making is heightened under certain conditions. For example, in a 2014 experiment in Pittsburgh, 268 participants played the Ultimatum Game, with 77 of them having a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%. Drunk participants were more likely to reject low offers than sober ones, reinforcing the idea that spite is an automatic, emotional response rather than a calculated choice. Similarly, when a separate group completed mentally draining Stroop tasks before playing, their rejection rate for unfair offers jumped from 44% to 64%, suggesting that cognitive fatigue also increases spiteful behavior.
The Social Dynamics of Spite
Spite takes different forms depending on social values and power dynamics. Counter-dominant spite is the tendency to punish those perceived as having too much power, aligning with beliefs in fairness, diversity, and social justice. This form of spite ensures that no one accumulates excessive resources at the expense of others, reflecting what researchers believe to be an ancient human instinct for egalitarianism.
On the other hand, dominant spite occurs when individuals harm others for personal gain. It aligns with meritocratic ideals, nationalism, and free-market capitalism, where personal success is often viewed as more important than collective well-being. Dominant spite is particularly evident in economic policies—one study found that 15% of participants chose to impose a 50% tax on the wealthiest individuals to provide an extra $500 to those in poverty, despite a more mutually beneficial alternative (a 10% tax for a $100 benefit) being available.
Spite is also deeply ingrained in political behavior. In a 2014 study, 14% of voters who were indifferent to both candidates still voted for one just to block the other from winning. This kind of spite-driven decision-making can shape political landscapes, often leading to polarization rather than constructive policy changes.
The Role of Serotonin
Brain chemistry plays a crucial role in how people experience and act on spite. Research has found that serotonin levels influence whether individuals choose to punish others at a personal cost. In a 2008 study by Molly Crockett and colleagues, participants played the Ultimatum Game after consuming a normal drink. Two years later, the same experiment was repeated with participants given a substance to increase serotonin levels. Those with higher serotonin levels were significantly less likely to reject unfair offers, suggesting that increased serotonin makes people more accepting of inequality.
Conversely, reducing serotonin levels has been linked to increased activity in the dorsal striatum, a brain region associated with punishment. This suggests that low serotonin may drive stronger urges to retaliate against perceived unfairness, even when it results in personal loss.
The Role of Antidepressants in Spite and Fairness Perception
Given the connection between serotonin and spite, it is worth considering the impact of antidepressants, which commonly work by increasing serotonin levels. The widespread use of these medications raises questions about how they might influence social behavior, including attitudes toward fairness and punishment.
Between 2011 and 2014, 13% of Americans aged 12 and over reported taking antidepressants in the past month. In England, the scale of antidepressant use is even more striking—by 2018, doctors had issued 71 million prescriptions for a population of 56 million. If antidepressants make individuals more willing to accept unfairness, as suggested by serotonin research, then their increasing prevalence could have broader societal implications, potentially reducing collective resistance to inequality.
A Tool for Social Control
Spite is not always about immediate retaliation—it can be strategic. Cheap spite, such as gossip, ridicule, and ostracism, spreads costs among a group, allowing people to punish others without significant personal sacrifice. Meanwhile, high-cost spite, such as active sabotage or retaliation, requires individuals to endure personal losses to harm their target.
One particularly interesting form of spite is do-gooder derogation, where people criticize those who behave too altruistically. This phenomenon discourages excessive generosity, ensuring that social norms remain balanced—people want others to be good, but not too good. Similarly, research has shown that opposition to minimum wage increases often comes from workers earning just above that threshold, driven by last place aversion—a desire to avoid slipping down the economic hierarchy.
When Spite Becomes Dangerous
While spite often enforces fairness, it can also fuel destruction. Terrorists and mass killers frequently believe they are acting for a greater moral cause, illustrating what McCarthy-Jones calls existential spite—the drive to act against one’s own best interests to feel free.
Scott Atran, an expert on radicalization, argues that individuals cannot commit large-scale harm unless they deeply believe in the moral virtue of their actions. This aligns with research showing that terrorists view their violence as altruistic, distinguishing them from common criminals who typically act for personal gain. Moreover, studies suggest that those most likely to incite chaos are young, less-educated men who feel socially marginalized, reinforcing the idea that spite can emerge as a response to perceived injustice or powerlessness.
Why Spite Exists
From an evolutionary standpoint, spite may serve a long-term function. Theories such as inclusive fitness suggest that harming competitors, even at personal cost, can benefit an individual’s genetic relatives. Wilsonian spite describes situations where personal losses are outweighed by advantages gained by close relatives, while Hamiltonian spite occurs when harm is directed at less related individuals, making the cost worthwhile in terms of genetic competition.
These theories help explain why spite persists—it can strengthen group identity, deter unfair behavior, and, in some cases, provide an advantage by limiting a rival’s success.
While spite is often seen as a negative force, it plays a crucial role in enforcing fairness and maintaining social balance. However, when unchecked, it can lead to unnecessary conflict, political division, and even large-scale violence. Understanding the psychological, neurological, and social mechanisms behind spite allows for better management of its effects.