May 10, 2025 05:55 PM
https://spsp.org/
PRESS RELEASE: A new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science examines how expressions of moral outrage on social media are linked to online activism, specifically petition signing behavior.
A research team led by Dr. Stefan Leach from Lancaster University analyzed over 1.2 million posts on X (formerly Twitter) containing links to nearly 25,000 petitions on Change.org. The findings reveal a surprising disconnect: while expressions of moral outrage significantly increase a post's virality (likes and reposts), they don't necessarily translate to other forms of action.
"Platforms are calibrated to capture attention by amplifying moralized and emotional content. This can have benefits, such as raising awareness of injustices by propagating expressions of outrage," explains Dr. Leach. "At the same time though, the findings suggest that online moral outrage may sometimes fail to translate into other types of collective responses, such as petition signing, which can influence stakeholders and policymakers."
The study discovered that expressions focusing on agency, group identity, and prosociality were more likely to generate petition signatures, though these posts received less viral attention on social media platforms.
"The most significant result is a double-dissociation of sorts," says Dr. Leach. "We find that expressions of moral outrage are directly linked to the virality of online petitions but not to the number of signatures they receive. Other expressions, such as those about helping others (i.e., prosociality), had no link to virality, but did predict a greater number of signatures."
These findings come amid growing concerns about social media's role in activism and political engagement. "There is growing concern about the impacts of social media on political engagement, mental health, educational outcomes, and even our basic ability to focus," Dr. Leach notes. "As debates continue, it is clear that we need an empirically-grounded understanding of how these platforms are shaping society."
The research team plans to explore why online expressions of moral outrage often fail to connect with real-world collective action.
"The next step is to better understand why online expressions of moral outrage are so often unrelated to other forms of collective action," Dr. Leach adds. "Social media makes it easier to express outrage, amplifies those expressions, and can reward them with attention and engagement. This dynamic may shift priorities and promote certain kinds of responses over others."
Dr. Leach encourages "a healthy skepticism about the role of social media in activism and collective action," noting that while platforms can help raise awareness of injustices, the elements truly crucial to collective action—such as identifying with a cause and feeling one can make a difference—may be at a disadvantage in online spaces.
PRESS RELEASE: A new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science examines how expressions of moral outrage on social media are linked to online activism, specifically petition signing behavior.
A research team led by Dr. Stefan Leach from Lancaster University analyzed over 1.2 million posts on X (formerly Twitter) containing links to nearly 25,000 petitions on Change.org. The findings reveal a surprising disconnect: while expressions of moral outrage significantly increase a post's virality (likes and reposts), they don't necessarily translate to other forms of action.
"Platforms are calibrated to capture attention by amplifying moralized and emotional content. This can have benefits, such as raising awareness of injustices by propagating expressions of outrage," explains Dr. Leach. "At the same time though, the findings suggest that online moral outrage may sometimes fail to translate into other types of collective responses, such as petition signing, which can influence stakeholders and policymakers."
The study discovered that expressions focusing on agency, group identity, and prosociality were more likely to generate petition signatures, though these posts received less viral attention on social media platforms.
"The most significant result is a double-dissociation of sorts," says Dr. Leach. "We find that expressions of moral outrage are directly linked to the virality of online petitions but not to the number of signatures they receive. Other expressions, such as those about helping others (i.e., prosociality), had no link to virality, but did predict a greater number of signatures."
These findings come amid growing concerns about social media's role in activism and political engagement. "There is growing concern about the impacts of social media on political engagement, mental health, educational outcomes, and even our basic ability to focus," Dr. Leach notes. "As debates continue, it is clear that we need an empirically-grounded understanding of how these platforms are shaping society."
The research team plans to explore why online expressions of moral outrage often fail to connect with real-world collective action.
"The next step is to better understand why online expressions of moral outrage are so often unrelated to other forms of collective action," Dr. Leach adds. "Social media makes it easier to express outrage, amplifies those expressions, and can reward them with attention and engagement. This dynamic may shift priorities and promote certain kinds of responses over others."
Dr. Leach encourages "a healthy skepticism about the role of social media in activism and collective action," noting that while platforms can help raise awareness of injustices, the elements truly crucial to collective action—such as identifying with a cause and feeling one can make a difference—may be at a disadvantage in online spaces.