When Do Two Wrongs Make a Right? Schadenfreude and the Legitimization of Illegal Attacks Against Corrupt National Institutions

This research investigated the role of schadenfreude—feelings of joy at a target’s misfortunes—in people’s legitimization of illegal attacks against corrupt institutions with formal authority. Five experiments (Experiment 1 conducted in 2018, the others in 2024–2025; Experiments 2–5 preregistered) in the United Kingdom and Italy (N total = 1,676) employed realistic scenarios involving cyberattacks and violent intimidation from criminal groups. Across studies, exposure to institutional corruption increased support for illegal retaliation, and schadenfreude consistently mediated this effect. In Experiments 2 and 5, heightened anger and disgust at the institution’s corrupt behavior and, in Experiment 3, reduced anger and disgust toward the illegal attacks themselves did not disrupt the link between schadenfreude and legitimization. Experiments 4 and 5 employed experimental approaches to mediation. Experiment 4 employed a manipulation-of-mediation-as-a-moderator design by altering the attackers’ group affiliation. Results provided experimental support for the hypothesized mediational role of schadenfreude, indicating that attacks perpetrated by a disliked outgroup are less likely to evoke schadenfreude and, in turn, legitimacy. Experiment 5 adopted a causal chain approach and manipulated the satisfaction elicited by the attacks. More satisfying attacks (vs. baseline) elicited stronger legitimization, even when controlling for general appraisals of deservingness. Collectively, the findings highlight the importance of positive moral affect elicited by the misfortunes befalling a target as a psychological mechanism underpinning support for illegal system-disrupting actions.