Abstract Close relationships often begin with asymmetry: one person helps, the other is helped. When the recipient later surpasses the benefactor in a domain central to the benefactor's identity, warm support can give way to resentment, withdrawal, and, in some cases, enduring hostility. Existing accounts of social comparison, self-evaluation maintenance, and envy predict that a close other's outperformance is threatening, but they do not explain why reversals of an established helping relationship are especially volatile. We propose the Status Reversal Envy Model (SREM), which makes three claims. First, helping creates benefactor standing , a relationship-specific source of self-worth that rests on the recipient's dependence and so is vulnerable to the recipient's success. Second, because benefactors perceive prior investment as creating a claim on the recipient's subordinate position, reversal is appraised as both a comparison threat and an injustice. This appraisal pattern favors malicious over benign envy and blends envy with moral resentment. Third, the aftermath is dyadic: the benefactor's withdrawal and the outperformer's anticipatory self-protection can reduce capitalization and mutual disclosure, producing a self-reinforcing cycle of estrangement. We derive eight testable propositions, specify boundary conditions and rival explanations, and propose an experimental, longitudinal, and dyadic research program. We also take a cautious stance on the neuroscience of envy and schadenfreude, treating it as converging but not diagnostic evidence. The model has implications for friendship maintenance, mentoring, and the study of prosocial behavior's hidden costs.
Keywords: envy, social comparison, self-evaluation maintenance, helping, status, schadenfreude, close relationships
Introduction Many of the most consequential relationships in adult life begin unequally. A senior colleague takes a junior colleague under her wing. A financially secure friend supports one who is between jobs. A sibling who navigated an institution first guides the one who follows. In each case the helper's sympathy is genuine, and the relationship is often gratifying to both parties. Over time, however, trajectories diverge. When the person once helped overtakes the helper in a domain that both consider important, the relationship faces a test that equal-status friendships never encounter in the same form. Anecdotally, helpers describe a quiet reluctance to celebrate, irritation they cannot justify, a sense of being "owed," and sometimes dislike that surprises them.
The research literature offers several relevant ideas but no integrated account of this case. Social comparison theory explains why close, similar others are the most informative and therefore the most consequential comparison targets (Festinger, 1954; Gerber et al., 2018). Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) theory specifies that a close other's outperformance on a self-relevant dimension lowers self-evaluation and motivates distancing, redefinition, or interference (Tesser, 1988). Research on envy distinguishes a benign, improvement-oriented form from a malicious, leveling form (van de Ven et al., 2009; Lange & Crusius, 2015), and a literature on helping shows that aid can function as a status claim (Nadler & Halabi, 2006; Fisher et al., 1982). Yet none of these literatures asks what happens when the helping relationship itself, rather than only a performance domain, is the source of a person's standing, and that standing is eliminated by the recipient's success.
This paper makes three contributions. First, we introduce benefactor standing as a distinct, dyad-specific self-evaluative resource and show why its loss produces a threat beyond ordinary upward comparison. Second, we argue that prior help generates an investment-based entitlement that shapes deservingness appraisals, linking envy to resentment and explaining the potential for hostility. Third, we model the aftermath as a dyadic dynamic in which the successful friend's anticipatory reactions feed back into the benefactor's affect. We close with propositions, boundary conditions, and a research agenda, and we are deliberate about what the model does not claim.
Theoretical Background Social comparison, proximity, and the closeness paradox
Festinger (1954) proposed that people evaluate their abilities by comparison with others, preferentially with similar ones. Because similarity and closeness covary, the people most likely to function as comparison standards are those closest to us. Subsequent work shows that upward comparison can inspire (assimilation) or deflate (contrast), depending on the standard's attainability, the comparer's mindset, and the self-relevance of the dimension (Collins, 1996; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Mussweiler, 2003; Gerber et al., 2018). Competitive motivation also appears to intensify when rivals are close in rank or standing (Garcia et al., 2006; Garcia et al., 2013). The implication for our topic is that a formerly distant, disadvantaged friend poses little comparative threat until the gap closes, at which point the friend becomes a highly diagnostic and proximal standard.
Self-evaluation maintenance: reflection, comparison, and the pain of being close
SEM theory holds that a close other's excellence has two opposing effects on self-evaluation. When the domain is low in self-relevance, the other's success is reflected and raises self-evaluation (cf. Cialdini et al., 1976). When the domain is high in self-relevance, comparison dominates and self-evaluation falls (Tesser, 1988; Tesser et al., 1988). People protect self-evaluation by reducing psychological closeness, lowering the domain's importance, or altering relative performance, including by withholding help. In a classic demonstration, participants gave less helpful clues to a friend than to a stranger when the task was described as self-relevant, but not when it was framed as unimportant (Tesser & Smith, 1980). SEM dynamics have also been documented in marriage (Beach et al., 1996).
SEM is the closest existing theory to the phenomenon we study, and it should be acknowledged as such. However, SEM treats the performance domain as the only locus of threat and treats relationships as moderators of that threat. It has little to say about relationships whose defining feature is an asymmetry in which one party's self-regard is partly constituted by the other's need. That gap is the point of departure for SREM.
Helping as status
Research on helping shows that aid is not psychologically neutral. It can convey superiority, threaten recipients' self-esteem, and maintain hierarchy (Fisher et al., 1982; Nadler, 2002). At the intergroup level, high-status groups offer help that is "dependency-oriented" when they wish to preserve status, and are less willing to help when a recipient's improvement threatens the hierarchy (Nadler & Halabi, 2006; Halabi et al., 2008). Stereotype-content research similarly shows that targets seen as warm but low in competence elicit paternalistic pity, whereas targets who become high in competence elicit envy (Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, 2010). Pity and envy are thus linked to the target's perceived status trajectory. We extend this logic from groups to dyads and from status maintenance to the emotional consequences of status loss.
Communal-relationship norms complicate the picture. In communal relationships benefits are given without expectation of repayment (Clark & Mills, 1979), which implies that a benefactor should be unthreatened by the recipient's gain. SREM predicts, to the contrary, that many helping relationships contain an implicit exchange component that is revealed only upon reversal, which is a testable claim and a source of the entitlement discussed below.
Envy: forms, appraisals, and the deservingness link
Envy arises when another's advantage in a self-relevant domain highlights one's own inferiority (Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim, 2007). A dual-form view distinguishes benign envy, which is associated with admiration and upward motivation, from malicious envy, which is associated with hostility and a desire to diminish the target (van de Ven et al., 2009, 2011; Lange & Crusius, 2015). This distinction is contested, and some researchers argue for a unitary construct with different behavioral expressions (Crusius et al., 2020). We adopt the dual-form view as a working assumption but note that our propositions are framed so that they can be tested under either view.
Perceived control and deservingness are the best-supported predictors of which form emerges. Malicious envy is more likely when the advantage is seen as unattainable for the self and as undeserved (van de Ven et al., 2012; Lange et al., 2018). Related work distinguishes envy from resentment , an indignation-based response to unjustly obtained advantage, and shows that undeserved success elicits resentment and, later, schadenfreude at the target's failure (Feather & Sherman, 2002). Envy-driven counterproductive behavior also intensifies when the envier perceives unfairness (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007). These findings are central to our model because the reversal context is one in which deservingness appraisals are unusually likely to be biased.
Neural evidence: converging but limited
Functional imaging has linked envy to activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a region implicated in conflict and social pain, and schadenfreude to ventral striatal reward activity, with the former predicting the latter across participants (Takahashi et al., 2009). Lesion evidence implicates ventromedial prefrontal cortex in both envy and gloating (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2007), and further imaging work has examined social-comparison processing more broadly (Dvash et al., 2010; Jankowski et al., 2014). We treat this evidence cautiously for three reasons. First, the foundational imaging studies used small samples and hypothetical, non-intimate targets, so their generalizability to close relationships is unknown. Second, ACC and striatal activation are not selective to envy or schadenfreude, so reverse inference from activation to a specific emotion is weak (Poldrack, 2006). Third, related work on intergroup schadenfreude shows that reward-related responses to others' misfortune depend on competitive context (Cikara & Fiske, 2011), which is consistent with our argument but does not test it. Accordingly, SREM uses the neural literature to motivate hypotheses about reward-based responses to a friend's setbacks and not as proof of mechanism.
The perspective of the outperformer
Exline and Lobel (1999) documented that high performers often anticipate and manage others' envy through concealment, minimization of their success, and compensatory behavior. This literature (sensitivity about being the target of threatening upward comparisons, STTUC) shows that the outperformer is an active participant in the unfolding dynamic, a point we incorporate below. Sharing good news is itself a relationship-building process, and responsiveness to it predicts closeness (Gable et al., 2004). If outperformers withhold good news to protect the relationship, they may inadvertently remove a key maintenance behavior.
The Status Reversal Envy Model Core constructs
Benefactor standing is the degree to which a person's self-worth in a given relationship derives from being the helper, provider, or more capable party. It is related to, but distinct from, general self-esteem, domain-specific ability beliefs, and inclusion of the other in the self (Aron et al., 1991). It is dyad-specific, role-based, and, crucially, contingent on the recipient's continued relative dependence .
Investment-based entitlement is the perception that prior help creates a claim on the recipient's continued subordinate or grateful position, or on a share of the recipient's success. It need not be consciously endorsed; the model predicts it from the discrepancy between explicit communal norms and implicit reactions to reversal.
Reversal salience is the degree to which the recipient's overtaking is publicly or privately visible and unambiguous (e.g., a promotion above the helper versus a gradual convergence).
Four phases
Phase 1: Asymmetric benevolence. The helper's sympathy is genuine, and helping affirms competence, generosity, and moral identity. We do not claim that helpers are covertly motivated by superiority. Prosocial motives and status-confirming side effects coexist, and the model concerns the latter's consequences when circumstances change. Because the friend is not yet a peer, the friend's modest gains are reflected rather than compared.
Phase 2: Comparative convergence. As the recipient's standing rises, the recipient becomes a diagnostic comparison standard and reflection gives way to comparison (Tesser, 1988). Affect at this phase is typically ambivalent: pride and unease coexist, and the helper may feel puzzled by their own reluctance. The model predicts that the helper's affect changes before the gap reaches zero, because proximity heightens comparative motivation (Garcia et al., 2006).
Phase 3: Reversal and dual threat. When the recipient surpasses the helper on the self-relevant dimension, two threats co-occur: a comparison threat (the helper is now outperformed by a close other) and a role threat (benefactor standing is lost because the recipient no longer needs help). Role threat is the model's distinctive element. Its operation implies that the threat should be detectable even when the helper's absolute outcomes are unchanged, and that it should exceed the threat produced by an otherwise identical reversal with a non-helped friend.
Phase 4: Appraisal, resolution, and consolidation. The helper appraises the reversal along dimensions of deservingness, attainability, and entitlement. Where investment-based entitlement is high, the recipient's rise is more likely to be construed as undeserved or ungrateful, which produces resentment and malicious envy. The helper then regulates the threat through one of several routes: (a) assimilative reframing, in which the helper claims partial credit and reflects the glory; (b) self-improvement , a benign envy path; (c) domain disengagement , in which the dimension is devalued; (d) relational distancing ; or (e) derogation and interference , a malicious path. Only the last two threaten the relationship, and only a subset of helpers will take them. Dislike or enduring hostility, which resembles a stable, identity-linked antipathy (Sternberg, 2003), is a low-base-rate outcome expected under conditions of high entitlement, rumination, and repeated exposure.
The dyadic loop
The outperformer is not passive. Perceiving the helper's flatter reactions, the outperformer may downplay achievements, avoid sharing news, or over-reciprocate (Exline & Lobel, 1999). Each reduces capitalization and responsiveness (Gable et al., 2004), which makes the relationship less rewarding and the helper's attributions of distance and arrogance more plausible. The model therefore predicts bidirectional influence over time and a point beyond which the relationship's trajectory is self-sustaining.
Figure 1 (to be produced). A path diagram showing: Prior help → Benefactor standing and Investment-based entitlement → (Reversal × Reversal salience) → Comparison threat + Role threat → Appraisals (deservingness, attainability) → Benign/malicious envy and resentment → Regulation routes → Relationship outcomes, with a feedback arrow from outperformer's anticipatory behavior to the helper's perceived distance. Moderators (domain centrality, self-esteem contingency, culture) are shown on the relevant paths.
Propositions P1 (Role threat). For a given reversal in a given domain, helpers will experience greater self-threat and negative affect toward the former recipient than will individuals who experience the same reversal with a friend they did not help, controlling for friendship closeness.
P2 (Anticipatory shift). Negative affect and reluctance to celebrate will begin to rise as the recipient approaches the helper's standing, with a steeper increase at the point of crossing than a linear gap model predicts (a discontinuity prediction).
P3 (Entitlement and deservingness). The greater the helper's investment-based entitlement, the more likely they are to appraise the recipient's success as undeserved, mediating the link between prior help and malicious envy and resentment.
P4 (Dissociation of envy and resentment). Reversal after help will elicit a combination of envy and moral resentment that is separable empirically, with resentment more strongly tied to perceived ingratitude and envy more strongly tied to inferiority.
P5 (Moderation by contingency). The effects in P1 to P4 will be strongest among helpers whose self-worth is contingent on competence or on being needed, and in domains central to their identity.
P6 (Attainability). Reversal will elicit benign rather than malicious envy to the extent that the helper perceives their own standing in the domain as improvable, and to the extent that the recipient's success is attributed to effort.
P7 (Dyadic amplification). Outperformers' perceived helper reactions will predict reduced disclosure of good news at later time points, which will in turn predict the helper's increased perceived distance (a cross-lagged prediction).
P8 (Reward-linked schadenfreude). Among helpers who experience malicious envy, the recipient's subsequent setbacks will elicit greater reward-related responses (self-reported and, if feasible, neural) than among helpers who experience benign envy or none.
Boundary Conditions and Rival Explanations Equal-status origins. Friendships that begin as equal should show weaker effects because no benefactor standing exists to be lost (P1). This is a falsifiable contrast with standard SEM, which predicts a similar threat from any close other's outperformance.
Substantial heterogeneity in outcomes. Many helpers will take assimilative or self-improvement paths, and SREM is a model of vulnerability, not inevitability. Helpers who define their identity in terms of the recipient's growth (e.g., teachers and mentors with a developmental identity) may experience reversal as confirmation (cf. the phase structure of mentoring relationships in Kram, 1983).
Rival explanations. Four alternatives should be ruled out in empirical work. (a) Legitimate grievance: the recipient may in fact have behaved ungratefully or neglectfully after success. (b) Network drift: life-stage and homophily changes can erode friendships independently of envy (McPherson et al., 2001). (c) Loss of a valued role without any comparison component, which would predict sadness and grief rather than envy and hostility. (d) Reverse causation: a friend's rise may be accompanied by reduced warmth because both parties are already estranged. Designs that measure the helper's affect before the reversal can address (d).
Culture. Self-construal and cultural norms about hierarchy, humility, and obligation may shape both entitlement and the acceptability of envy's expression (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). We expect entitlement to be more explicitly endorsed where reciprocal obligation norms are strong, but the direction of effects on hostility is an open question.
Research Agenda Experimental. A laboratory paradigm could assign participants to a helper role (e.g., giving advice or resources that improve a partner's performance on a task framed as diagnostic) versus a matched control, then manipulate whether the partner subsequently outperforms them, with reversal salience varied. Outcomes include self-reported envy and resentment (measured with discriminating items), deservingness appraisals, and behavioral measures such as costly help withholding, adapted from Tesser and Smith (1980). Preregistration, adequately powered samples, and manipulation checks for perceived entitlement are essential.
Longitudinal and dyadic. Real friend, sibling, and mentor-mentee dyads should be tracked through career transitions with repeated measures of benefactor standing, domain centrality, envy, resentment, capitalization, and relationship quality, analyzed with actor-partner interdependence models (Kenny et al., 2006). Cross-lagged designs can test P7 and distinguish SREM from network-drift accounts.
Neuroscientific. Imaging studies should use close, personally relevant targets with a known helping history, replace single-region interpretations with network and multivariate analyses, and address reverse inference by including independent behavioral markers (Poldrack, 2006).
Measurement. A validated scale of benefactor standing and one of investment-based entitlement are prerequisites for testing the model, as is a measure that separates envy from resentment.
Implications Relationships. The model suggests that friendships formed through help may need to renegotiate their basis before a reversal occurs, for instance by anchoring the relationship in shared interests and mutual support rather than in complementary roles. Interventions that build responsiveness to good news (Gable et al., 2004) and that help helpers recognize and name a conflicted reaction as common may reduce the likelihood of withdrawal.
Organizations. In mentoring, the possibility of reversal is built in. Organizations can normalize it, reward mentors for protégé advancement, and avoid zero-sum comparative evaluation between mentor and protégé.
Clinical. Persistent envy, resentment, and schadenfreude directed at friends may signal contingent self-worth, and can be addressed with interventions that broaden sources of self-esteem. We caution against treating these reactions as pathological in themselves, as they are common human responses.
Theory. The model suggests that prosocial behavior can generate latent psychological liabilities. Helping may not only benefit the helper but also install a self-evaluative dependency that is exposed only when conditions change.
Limitations SREM is currently a theoretical proposal. Its novelty relative to SEM rests on the constructs of benefactor standing and investment-based entitlement, which await measurement and validation. Several propositions rely on helpers' introspective access to motives that they may be unwilling to report, and social desirability is likely to attenuate self-reported envy and schadenfreude. The neural literature is thin for close relationships. Finally, we have emphasized the helper's side; a full account requires the recipient's perspective, including how recipients experience gratitude, indebtedness, and autonomy (Fisher et al., 1982).
Conclusion When someone we have helped surpasses us, we lose more than a rank: we may lose a role that supported our sense of worth, and we may feel that an investment has been wrongly repaid. SREM specifies how these two threats combine to favor malicious envy and resentment, why the outcome is neither universal nor purely intrapsychic, and how it can be tested. By locating the problem in the interplay between benefactor identity, deservingness, and dyadic feedback, the model offers a more precise account of why generosity can, in some circumstances, end in estrangement.
References Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (2), 241–253.
Beach, S. R. H., Tesser, A., Mendolia, M., Anderson, P., Crelia, R., Whitaker, D., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Self-evaluation maintenance in marriage: Toward a performance ecology of the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 10 (4), 379–396.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (3), 366–375.
Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets' (mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (12), 3791–3803.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), 12–24.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 666–680.
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (1), 51–69.
Crusius, J., Gonzalez, M. F., Lange, J., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2020). Envy: An adversarial review and comparison of two competing views. Emotion Review, 12 (1), 3–21.
Dvash, J., Gilboa, A., Gilboa-Schechtman, E., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The envious brain: The neural basis of social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, 31 (11), 1741–1750.
Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (3), 307–337.
Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy: Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (7), 953–961.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–140.
Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin, 91 (1), 27–54.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. American Psychologist, 65 (8), 698–706.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 878–902.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2), 228–245.
Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (7), 970–982.
Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Schiff, T. M. (2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (6), 634–650.
Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (2), 177–197.
Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2008). When and how do high status group members offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29 (6), 841–858.
Jankowski, K. F., Takahashi, H., & von Ziegler, N. (2014). Cognitive neuroscience of social emotions and implications for psychopathology: Examining embarrassment, guilt, envy, and schadenfreude. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 68 (5), 319–336.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 608–625.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (2), 284–294.
Lange, J., Weidman, A. C., & Crusius, J. (2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for an integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114 (4), 572–598.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 91–103.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 , 415–444.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 472–489.
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (3), 487–502.
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group's help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 97–110.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (6), 906–920.
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (2), 59–63.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tibi-Elhanany, Y., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2007). The green-eyed monster and malicious joy: The neuroanatomical bases of envy and gloating (schadenfreude). Brain, 130 (6), 1663–1678.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 46–64.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres, and genocide. Review of General Psychology, 7 (3), 299–328.
Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science, 323 (5916), 937–939.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21 , 181–227.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 49–61.
Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of task relevance and friendship on helping: You don't always help the one you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16 (6), 582–590.
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9 (3), 419–429.
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (6), 784–795.
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Appraisal patterns of envy and related emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 36 (2), 195–204.