Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Online Moral Outrage Outrageous? Rethinking the Indignation Machine

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Moral outrage is often characterized as a corrosive emotion, but it can also inspire collective action. In this article we aim to deepen our understanding of the dual nature of online moral outrage which divides people and contributes to inclusivist moral reform. We argue that the specifics of violating different types of moral norms will influence the effects of moral outrage: moral outrage against violating harm-based norms is less antagonistic than moral outrage against violating loyalty and purity/identity norms. We identify which features of social media platforms shape our moral lives. Connectivity, omniculturalism, online exposure, increased group identification and fostering what we call “expressionist experiences”, all change how moral outrage is expressed in the digital realm. Finally, we propose changing the design of social media platforms and raise the issue of moral disillusion when ample moral protest in the online environment does not have the expected effects on the offline world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  • Althaus, S. (2012). What’s good and bad in political communication research? Normative standards for evaluating media and citizen performance. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201015

  • Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme, 3(1–2), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8

  • Anderson, E. S. (2022). Can we talk?: Communicating moral concern in an era of polarized politics. Journal of Practical Ethics, 10(1).

  • Appiah, K. A. (2004). The ethics of identity. Princeton University Press.

  • Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.

  • Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2019). How effective is online outrage? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (28), 7313–7318.

  • Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canetti, E. (1973). Crowds and power, trans. Carol Stewart. Continuum.

  • Carpenter, J., William, B. J., Crockett, M. J., Weber, R., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2020). Political polarization and moral outrage on social media. Connecticut Law Review, 52(3), 1107–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. (2022). Mobilize Airbnb support in times of humanitarian crisis. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–7.

  • Cherry, M. (2021). The case for rage: Why anger is essential to anti-racist struggle. Oxford University Press.

  • Chotiner, I. (2021). Martha Nussbaum on #MeToo. The New Yorker, June 1, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/martha-nussbaum-on-metoo.

  • Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

  • Cocking, D., & van den Hoven, J. (2018). Evil online. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett, M. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0213-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Coninck, D. (2022). The refugee paradox during wartime in Europe: How Ukrainian and Afghan refugees are (not) alike. International Migration Review, https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183221116874.

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289–324. http://www.jstor.org/stable/658129

  • Fritz, J. (2021). Online shaming and the ethics of public disapproval. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38, 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon, R., & Fridman, A. (2022). Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(49), e2215633119.

  • Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PloS One, 7(12), e50092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray, & Jesse Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology. Guilford Press.

  • Gummerum, M., Van Dillen, L. F., Van Dijk, E., & López-Pérez, B. (2016). Costly third-party interventions: The role of incidental anger and attention focus in punishment of the perpetrator and compensation of the victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2022). Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid. The Atlantic, 11.

  • Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019). The dark psychology of social networks. The Atlantic, 6–60.

  • Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. P. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford University Press.

  • Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success. Princeton University Press.

  • Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Penguin.

  • Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., & Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Replication data for: Morality in everyday life. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, B. N. (2021). Regimes of recognition on algorithmic media. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211053555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnen, M., Jungblut, M., & Ziegele, M. (2018). The digital outcry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm? New Media & Society, 20(9), 3140–3160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817741883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. R., & Post, D. G. (1997). Law and borders - the rise of law in cyberspace. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 535. (Social Sciences Research Network). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=535.

  • Jordan, J., McAuliffe, K., & Rand, D. (2016). The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnier, R. T., Kernes, J. L., & Dautheribes, T. M. (2000). A short list of universal moral values. Counseling and values, 45(1), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lergetporer, P., Angerer, S., Glätzle-Rützler, D., & Sutter, M. (2014). Third-party punishment increases cooperation in children through (misaligned) expectations and conditional cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(19), 6916–6921.

  • Levy, N. (2021). Virtue signalling is virtuous. Synthese, 198(10), 9545–9562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–28.

  • Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). Tweet honestly, I tweet passionately : Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13 (1), 114–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313.

  • Mccoy, J., & Press, B. (2022). What happens when democracies become perniciously polarized? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190

  • Mihailov, E. (2018). Refocusing the nudge debate on organ donation. In E. Mihailov, T. Wangmo, V. Federiuc & B. Elger (eds), Contemporary debates in bioethics: European perspectives, (pp. 1-174). De Gruyter Open.

  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2012). The omnicultural imperative. Culture & Psychology, 18(3), 304–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X12446230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, C. T., & Williams, B. (2020). Moral outrage porn. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 18(2), 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretus, C., Hamid, N., Sheikh, H., Ginges, J., Tobeña, A., Davis, R., & Atran, S. (2018). Neural and behavioral correlates of sacred values and vulnerability to violent extremism. Frontiers in Psychology, 24-62.

  • Phoenix, D. L. (2019). The anger gap: How race shapes emotion in politics. Cambridge University Press.

  • Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rekers, Y., Haun, D. B., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Children, but not chimpanzees, prefer to collaborate. Current Biology, 21(20), 1756–1758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, K., Jensen, K., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). No third-party punishment in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(37), 14824–14829.

  • Russell, P. S., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2011). Moral anger is more flexible than moral disgust. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 360–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, L. (2021). Is anger a hostile emotion? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1–20.

  • Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D., & Cikara, M. (2018). The upside of outrage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1067–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spring, V. L., Cameron, D. C., & Cikara, M. (2019). Asking different questions about outrage: A reply to Brady and Crockett. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, A. (2018). The aptness of anger. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. J., McCarty, N., & Bryson, J. J. (2020). Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Science Advances, 6(50), eabd4201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Why nudge?: The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press.

  • Tagar, M. R., Federico, C. M., & Halperin, E. (2011). The positive effect of negative emotions in protracted conflict: The case of anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian (2022). Protest strikes in Iran reported as solidarity rallies held around world, accessed 28 November 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/22/protest-strikes-in-iran-reported-as-solidarity-rallies-held-around-world

  • Thornhill, C., Meeus, Q., Peperkamp, J., & Berendt, B. (2019). A digital nudge to counter confirmation bias. Frontiers in Big Data, 2, 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, J., & Warmke, B. (2016). Moral grandstanding. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 44(3), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufekci, Z. (2018). Twitter and tear gas. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijck, J. (2012). Facebook as a tool for producing sociality and connectivity. Television & New Media, 13(2), 160–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voinea, C., Vică, C., Mihailov, E., & Savulescu, J. (2020). The internet as cognitive enhancement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2345–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00210-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2012). Social connection enables dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westra, E. (2021). Virtue signaling and moral progress. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 49(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2018). Stand out of our light: Freedom and resistance in the attention economy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social media and the arab spring: Politics comes first. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawadzka-Paluektau, N. (2022). Ukrainian refugees in Polish press. Discourse & Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813221111636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Alexandra Zorilă, Mihaela Constantinescu, Anda Zahiu, Isobel Savulescu, Cristian Iftode, Veronica Lazăr, Bettina Lange, and Dan Zeman for thoughtful comments. We also thank the editor and reviewers for their advice and comments throughout the reviewing process.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministery of Education and Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020–0521, within PNCDI III.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, 204 Splaiul Independentei St, Bucharest, RO-060024, Romania

    Emilian Mihailov & Constantin Vică

  2. Research Center in Applied Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Cristina Voinea

Authors
  1. Emilian Mihailov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Voinea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantin Vică
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Voinea.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Consent for publication

We hereby attest that all authors have agreed to the submission. This research has not been previously published, nor is under review elsewhere, and will not be submitted for review for publication while under review at Science and Engineering Ethics.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihailov, E., Voinea, C. & Vică, C. Is Online Moral Outrage Outrageous? Rethinking the Indignation Machine. Sci Eng Ethics 29, 12 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00435-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00435-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation