What is it about?
People sometimes react positively when corrupt institutions are attacked, even if those attacks are illegal, such as cyberattacks or intimidation by organised criminal groups. This research shows that when institutions are seen as corrupt, feeling pleasure at these illegal attacks can make them seem more acceptable or legitimate. Across five experimental studies in the United Kingdom and Italy, participants were more willing to justify illegal attacks after learning about institutional corruption. Crucially, this effect was driven by pleasure at the attacks themselves, rather than by anger, disgust, or beliefs about whether the institution “deserved” the harm. These findings help explain why illegal and violent actions against public institutions can gain public support.
Featured Image
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Public reactions to illegal and violent attacks on institutions are often explained in terms of anger, grievance, or beliefs about deservingness. This research is unique in showing that positive emotions, specifically pleasure at the attacks themselves, play a crucial role in making illegal actions seem legitimate when institutions are perceived as corrupt. This insight is particularly important because the actors carrying out these attacks – such as hackers or criminal groups – operate without external accountability. Their actions can easily escalate, target the wrong institutions or individuals, bypass due process, and foster broader mistrust in public authority. Legitimising such actions risks normalising forms of power that are opaque, selective, and unconstrained. The findings are timely in a context where cyberattacks, sabotage, and intimidation of public institutions are increasingly visible and often framed as justified responses to corruption or abuse of power. By identifying an emotional mechanism that can legitimise illegal system-disrupting actions, this research helps explain how democratic institutions may be weakened not only by corruption itself, but also by public approval of unaccountable and illegal forms of retaliation. In this sense, the study highlights a subtle but significant pathway through which democratic norms can be eroded.
Perspectives
This publication reflects a longstanding interest of mine in understanding when and why the actions of outlaws, bandits, or criminal groups can come to be seen as legitimate and acquire a political meaning. I have long been fascinated by the conditions under which illegal actors are no longer viewed simply as criminals, but as figures who challenge power and authority. This research was inspired by the notion of social banditry, first introduced by the social historian Eric Hobsbawm in 1959. Hobsbawm’s work raised an enduring question: how can actors who operate outside the law come to be admired by ordinary people? What has often been missing from this discussion is a clear account of the psychological processes that make this possible. I am particularly pleased that this research allows me to address that gap by focusing on the emotional dynamics involved. I hope this work contributes a psychological perspective to a classic historical and political problem and helps bridge debates about crime, power, and legitimacy.
Giovanni Travaglino
Royal Holloway University of London
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: When do two wrongs make a right? Schadenfreude and the legitimization of illegal attacks against corrupt national institutions., Emotion, January 2026, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/emo0001643.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
