News
~801 words | ~ 5 309 characters | Reading time: 4 minutes
When Someone Else’s Pain Brings Satisfaction: An Experimental Study of Schadenfreude
Can the pleasure derived from someone else’s suffering be measured? It turns out that it can. Karolina Dyduch-Hazar, a member of our association from the University of Würzburg, along with her colleagues, captured the phenomenon known as schadenfreude using facial electromyography (fEMG). In the experiment, participants competed against supposed opponents, some of whom behaved provocatively while others behaved neutrally. It was found that participants smiled when the provocateur experienced pain, indicating schadenfreude, whereas they reacted more empathetically toward the non-provocative rival.
INTRODUCTION | We all know this feeling, though not everyone knows its name. Schadenfreude is an unpleasant, grating word that doesn’t easily fit into Polish. Literally, it means “pleasure derived from another person’s suffering.” It appears when your rival, adversary, or enemy experiences failure. Schadenfreude is simply joy at someone else’s misfortune.
When a colleague at work who constantly brags about their successes experiences a setback. When a candidate from the opposing political party loses an election.
How can we study the emotion of schadenfreude? One can ask about it through a self-report questionnaire. Unfortunately, this method has many drawbacks—people are reluctant to admit that they enjoy someone else’s suffering. How willing are you to confess that you take pleasure in someone’s pain? Social expectations prevent us from openly acknowledging such emotions. That is why Dr. Dyduch-Hazar’s team used facial electromyography, a method that measures the tension of facial muscles and captures spontaneous, unconscious affective reactions. This approach functions like looking into the soul without all the polished words.
When a colleague at work who constantly brags about their successes experiences a setback. When a candidate from the opposing political party loses an election.
HYPOTHESES | The researchers expected that participants would smile more when observing a provocateur—someone who had previously treated them unfairly—experiencing pain compared to situations in which the provocateur did not show pain.
PROCEDURE | The study examined the emotional and physiological reactions of participants during a reaction-time competition. Here is how it unfolded:
1. TASK Participants were told they would compete against other people in a task requiring them to click a mouse button as soon as a circle on the screen changed color. The winner was rewarded, and the loser heard a loud sound. However, the results were predetermined—the participants lost half of the trials regardless of their performance, and the outcome was randomly manipulated.
2. SOUND STIMULATIONS Participants believed they had full control over the task. After losing, they were punished with a sound supposedly selected by their opponent. For “provocative” rivals, the sound was louder (70–75 dB), while for “non-provocative” rivals it was softer (55–60 dB). Some rivals played the role of the villain. The sound lasted 3 seconds.
Seventy decibels—how loud is that? It turns out that it’s about the level of noise in a loud restaurant or a running vacuum cleaner. Meanwhile, quietness at home ranges between 55 and 60 decibels.
3. RIVAL’S REACTIONS Po fter the participant won a round, they observed their opponent receiving the punishment. The rival either reacted with pain (e.g., frowning, clenched teeth) or did not react at all. Importantly, participants did not decide the intensity of the sound. The computer administered the punishment “on their behalf.”.
The width of the smile was broken down into components— increased activity of the zygomaticus major muscle, the orbicularis oculi muscle, and decreased activity of the corrugator supercilii muscle. Several electrodes were attached to the participant’s face to monitor muscle tension and measure muscle activity (EMG).
PARTICIPANTS | Initially, the plan was to study N = 62 people. This number was slightly inflated to account for potential drop-out. The final number of participants was N = 43, only two of whom were men (which later became a limitation of the study). Participants were young adults aged 19 to 39.
RESULTS | As expected, participants smiled when they saw that their rival was experiencing pain, even though the pain was inflicted not by the participant but by the computer. This reaction was especially strong when the rival was perceived as the “provocateur.” Smiling increased when they saw this person suffer but not when the rival showed no pain, even if they still lost. Participants frowned when witnessing the suffering of a non-provocative rival, which is a sign of empathic concern.
Lack of pleasure from the suffering of a non-provocative rival—When participants observed the suffering of a rival who was not a provocateur (even though still a competitor), their reaction was more empathetic—rather than smiling, they displayed a sadness-like grimace (increased activity of facial muscles associated with such expression).
TAKE HOME MESSAGE | The study shows that participants smiled more often, displaying schadenfreude, when they saw a provocative rival experiencing pain, even when they themselves were not administering the punishment.
In the post also used: Ihe illustration on the home page (i.e., the highlight image) was generated by artificial intelligence (Microsoft Copilot / DALLE).
Views: 5