Moral Outrage in the Digital Age Moral Outrage Is an Ancient Emotion That Is Now Widespread on Digital Media and Online Social Networks

Home , Outrage (emotion)

comment Moral outrage in the digital age Moral outrage is an ancient emotion that is now widespread on digital media and online social networks. How might these new technologies change the expression of moral outrage and its social consequences?

M. J. Crockett

oral outrage is a powerful emotion that motivates people to Stimuli Responses Outcomes shame and punish wrongdoers1. M Exposure Emotion intensity Retaliation costs Moralistic punishment can be a force for good, increasing cooperation by holding Emotional content Empathic costs bad actors accountable. But punishment Physical constraints Personal beneﬁts also has a dark side — it can exacerbate Habit formation Social beneﬁts social conflict by dehumanizing others2 and escalating into destructive feuds. Moral outrage is at least as old as Fig. 1 | How digital media might transform moral outrage. Moral outrage is an emotion elicited by civilization itself, but civilization is rapidly stimuli appraised as signifying moral norm violations. The subjective experience of outrage in reaction to changing in the face of new technologies. such stimuli motivates the expression of behavioural responses such as gossip, shaming or punishment. Worldwide, more than a billion people now Expressing outrage can lead to positive and negative outcomes for oneself and for society. Digital media spend at least an hour a day on social media, may promote the expression of outrage by magnifying its triggers, reducing its personal costs and and moral outrage is all the rage online. In amplifying its personal benefits, while at the same time reducing its benefits for society. recent years, viral online shaming has cost companies millions, candidates elections, and individuals their careers overnight. to learn about immoral acts online than architecture of the attention economy creates As digital media infiltrates our social in person or through traditional forms of a steady flow of outrageous ‘clickbait’ that lives, it is crucial that we understand media (Fig. 2a). people can access anywhere and at any time. how this technology might transform the Before the internet existed, gossip expression of moral outrage and its social served a purpose of spreading news about The experience and expression of consequences. Here, I describe a simple who could be trusted within local social moral outrage psychological framework for tackling this networks4. By this logic, information Moral norm violations cause people to question (Fig. 1). Moral outrage is triggered should be shared as a function of its ability experience moral outrage and to express by stimuli that call attention to moral norm to reinforce trust and cooperation within it via gossip, shaming and punishment. violations. These stimuli evoke a range the community. But online platforms have Digital media might alter the subjective of emotional and behavioural responses profoundly changed the incentives of experience of outrage in several ways. By that vary in their costs and constraints. information sharing. Because they compete increasing the frequency and extremity of Finally, expressing outrage leads to a variety for our attention to generate advertising triggering stimuli, one possible long-term of personal and social outcomes. This revenue, their algorithms promote content consequence of digital media is ‘outrage framework reveals that digital media may that is most likely to be shared, regardless of fatigue’: constant exposure to outrageous exacerbate the expression of moral outrage whether it benefits those who share it — or news could diminish the overall intensity by inflating its triggering stimuli, reducing is even true. of outrage experiences, or cause people some of its costs and amplifying many of its Research on virality shows that people to experience outrage more selectively to personal benefits. are more likely to share content that elicits reduce emotional and attentional demands. moral emotions such as outrage5. Because On the other hand, studies have shown that Triggers of moral outrage outrageous content generates more revenue venting anger begets more anger6. If digital People become outraged when they think through viral sharing, natural selection-like media makes it easier to express outrage, a moral norm has been violated1. A recent forces may favour ‘supernormal’ stimuli that this could intensify subsequent experiences study conducted in the US and Canada trigger much stronger outrage responses of outrage. Future research is necessary to suggests that encountering norm violations than do transgressions we typically resolve these possibilities. in person is relatively rare: less than 5% of encounter in everyday life. Supporting People express outrage in several ways reported daily experiences involved directly this hypothesis, there is evidence that that vary in terms of their effort and witnessing or experiencing immoral acts3. immoral acts encountered online incite constraints. Offline, people can harm But the internet exposes us to a vast array of stronger moral outrage than immoral acts wrongdoers’ reputations through gossip, or misdeeds, from corrupt practices of bankers encountered in person or via traditional directly confront them with verbal sanctions on Wall Street, to child trafficking in Asia, forms of media (Fig. 2b). These observations or physical aggression. The latter two to genocide in Africa — the list goes on. In suggest that digital media transforms moral methods require more effort and also carry fact, data from a study of everyday moral outrage by changing both the nature and potential physical risks for the punisher. In experience3 show that people are more likely prevalence of the stimuli that trigger it. The contrast, people can express outrage online

a b 8 ** Online * 7

In person e

ag 5

al outr 4

Print/TV/radio Mor 3

2 0510 15 20 25 30 % of total reported 1 0 Learned about immoral act Learned about moral act Print/TV/radio In person Online

Fig. 2 | Exposure to immoral acts and resulting moral outrage, online versus offline. In a previous study3, people’s smartphones were signalled five times a day for three days to sample everyday moral experiences in a geographically and demographically diverse sample of North American adults (N = 1252). a, A reanalysis of this data revealed that participants were more likely to learn about immoral acts online than in person or via traditional forms of media (print, television and radio; χ2 = 9.51, P = 0.009). The figure displays the percentage of total reported moral/immoral acts that were learned about in each setting. b, For each immoral act, moral outrage was calculated by multiplying self-reported anger and disgust1. Moral outrage ratings were entered into a linear mixed- effects model using the MIXED command in SPSS with setting type (traditional media, in person or online) as a categorical BY variable. This revealed that immoral acts encountered online evoked more outrage than immoral acts encountered in person (t(771) = 2.723, P = 0.007) or via traditional forms of media (t(762) = 4.555, P < 0.001). Error bars represent s.e.m.; *P < 0.01, **P < 0.001. with just a few keystrokes, from the comfort ‘stimulus–response–outcome’ architecture unpleasant. Online settings reduce empathic of their bedrooms, either directly to the that is consistent across situations. Clickbait distress by representing other people as two- wrongdoer or to a broader audience. With headlines are presented alongside highly dimensional icons whose suffering is not even less effort, people can repost or react to distinctive visual icons that allow people readily visible. It’s a lot easier to shame an others’ angry comments. Since the tools for to express outrage with a tap of the finger. avatar than someone whose face you can see. easily and quickly expressing outrage online Positive feedback for these responses Despite these and other costs, people are literally at our fingertips, a person’s (likes, shares, and so on) is delivered are still obviously motivated to express threshold for expressing outrage is probably at unpredictable times — a pattern of moral outrage. One reason for this is lower online than offline. reinforcement well known to promote habit that expressing moral outrage benefits Furthermore, expressing outrage in formation7. And just as a habitual snacker individuals by signalling their moral quality person (that is, via verbal sanctions or eats without feeling hungry, a habitual to others8. That is, outrage expression aggression) is necessarily constrained by online shamer might express outrage provides reputational rewards. People are physical proximity to the wrongdoer. But without actually feeling outraged. Thus, not necessarily conscious of these rewards expressing outrage online is not limited when outrage expression moves online it when they express outrage. But the fact by location, time of day, or the probability becomes more readily available, requires less that people are more likely to punish when of chance encounters with perpetrators. effort, and is reinforced on a schedule that others are watching9 indicates that a concern People can and do seek out targets of maximizes the likelihood of future outrage for reputation at least implicitly whets outrage, even if they are total strangers living expression in ways that might divorce the our appetite for moral outrage. Of course, across the globe in a different time zone. A feeling of outrage from its behavioural online social networks massively amplify the paradigmatic example is the case of expression. reputational benefits of outrage expression. Justine Sacco, a woman who tweeted a While offline punishment signals your comment about AIDS in Africa that many Costs and benefits of moral outrage virtue only to whoever might be watching, perceived to be racist. Within hours, she Expressing moral outrage can be costly. doing so online instantly advertises your became the top trending topic on Twitter as Offline, moralistic punishment carries character to your entire social network millions of strangers around the world piled a risk of retaliation. But online social and beyond. A single tweet with an initial on the shaming bandwagon. The ease of networks limit this risk. They enable people audience of just a few hundred can quickly piling on raises the intriguing possibility that to sort themselves into echo chambers reach millions through viral sharing — and in online settings, people may express moral with sympathetic audiences5. The chance outrage fuels virality5. outrage without actually experiencing the of backlash is low when you’re only Expressing moral outrage does not degree of outrage their behaviour implies. broadcasting moral disapproval to like- merely benefit individuals. It can also benefit A further, speculative hypothesis is that minded others. Moreover, they allow people society by holding bad actors accountable the design of digital media platforms may to hide in a crowd. Shaming a stranger on and sending a message to others that encourage habitual outrage expression. a deserted street is far riskier than joining a such behaviour is socially unacceptable. Offline, the stimuli that trigger outrage Twitter mob of thousands. Online platforms put these tools in the and the way people choose to respond are Another cost of outrage expression is hands of everyone, enabling traditionally typically unique to the situation. But social empathic distress: punishing and shaming disempowered groups to check the behaviour media apps streamline triggering stimuli and involves inflicting harm on other human of more powerful interests. Expressing available responses into a heavily designed beings, which for most of us is naturally outrage online may heighten people’s

Nature Human Behaviour | www.nature.com/nathumbehav © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. comment

adherence to a cause by publicly committing Conclusions these questions, but not all of it is publicly themselves to action. But digital media limits If moral outrage is a fire, is the internet available. These data can and should be used the potential social benefits of moral outrage like gasoline? Technology companies to understand how new technologies might in several ways. First, ideological segregation have argued that their products provide transform ancient social emotions from online prevents the targets of outrage from neutral platforms for social behaviours a force for collective good into a tool for receiving messages that could induce them but do not change those behaviours. This collective self-destruction. ❐ (and like-minded others) to change their is an empirical question that behavioural behaviour. For politicized issues, moral scientists should address, because its answer M. J. Crockett disapproval ricochets within echo chambers has ethical and regulatory implications. The Department of Psychology, Yale University, but only occasionally escapes5. Second, The framework proposed here offers 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. by lowering the threshold for outrage a set of testable hypotheses about the e-mail: [email protected] expression, digital media may degrade the impact of digital media on the expression of ability of outrage to distinguish the truly moral outrage and its social consequences. Published: xx xx xxxx heinous from the merely disagreeable. Third, Digital media may promote the expression DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0213-3 expressing outrage online may result in less of moral outrage by magnifying its meaningful involvement in social causes, for triggers, reducing its personal costs and References 1. Salerno, J. M. & Peter-Hagene, L. C. Psychol. Sci. 24, example through volunteering or donations. amplifying its personal benefits. At the 2069–2078 (2013). People are less likely to spend money on same time, online social networks may 2. Fincher, K. M. & Tetlock, P. E. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, punishing unfairness when they are given diminish the social benefits of outrage 131–146 (2016). the opportunity to express their outrage via by reducing the likelihood that norm- 3. Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J. & Skitka, L. J. Replication data for: morality in everyday life. Harvard Dataverse 10 written messages instead . enforcing messages reach their targets, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26910 (2014). Finally, there is a serious risk that moral and could even impose new social costs by 4. Dunbar, R. I. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 100–110 (2004). outrage in the digital age will deepen social increasing polarization. 5. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Bavel, J. J. V. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017). divides. A recent study suggests a desire Preliminary data support the framework’s 6. Bushman, B. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 724–731 (2002). to punish others makes them seem less predictions, showing that outrage-inducing 7. Dickinson, A., Nicholas, D. J. & Adams, C. D. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. human2. Thus, if digital media exacerbates content appears to be more prevalent and Sect. B 35, 35–51 (1983). 8. Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Bloom, P. & Rand, D. G. Nature 530, moral outrage, in doing so it may increase potent online than offline. Future studies 473–476 (2016). social polarization by further dehumanizing should investigate the extent to which digital 9. Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P. & O’Brien, E. Evol. Hum. Behav. 28, the targets of outrage. Polarization in the media platforms intensify moral emotions, 75–84 (2007). 10. Xiao, E. & Houser, D. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, US is accelerating at an alarming pace, with promote habit formation, suppress 7398–7401 (2005). widespread and growing declines in trust and productive social discourse, and change the social capital. If digital media accelerates this nature of moral outrage itself. There are vast Competing interests process further still, we ignore it at our peril. troves of data that are directly pertinent to The author declares no competing interests.