In a groundbreaking study recently published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, researchers have unveiled intriguing insights into the complex relationship between moral outrage expressed on social media platforms and subsequent forms of online activism. This investigation challenges some of the prevailing assumptions about how digital expressions of indignation translate into tangible political engagement, particularly focusing on petition signing behavior. The findings suggest a nuanced dynamic: while moral outrage tends to accelerate the spread and virality of online petitions, it does not necessarily increase the number of individuals who take meaningful action by signing those petitions.
Led by Dr. Stefan Leach at Lancaster University, the research team undertook an extensive analysis of over 1.2 million social media posts on X (formerly known as Twitter). These posts included links to nearly 25,000 petitions hosted on Change.org, one of the world’s largest online petition platforms. By applying advanced computational and statistical methods to this vast dataset, the researchers sought to understand how different emotional and moral framings within social media dialogues influence both the attention these posts receive and the direct participation of users in activism.
Their analysis revealed a striking double dissociation: posts laden with moral outrage triggered significantly higher levels of virality—as measured by likes, shares, and reposts—effectively amplifying the visibility of the petitions they linked to. However, these highly viral posts did not correspond with a proportional increase in the number of petition signatures. In other words, moral outrage is excellent at catching the eye and stimulating surface-level engagement across social networks but appears inefficient at motivating the more effortful act of signing a petition.
Dr. Leach elaborates on the implications: “Social media platforms are architected to prioritize emotionally charged and moralized content because such material grabs attention and drives engagement metrics. This amplification can be a double-edged sword; while it raises awareness about social injustices and mobilizes public sentiment, it does not reliably convert that sentiment into substantive civic actions.” These findings reveal a critical gap between digital expression and actual political participation, suggesting that not all forms of online activism are created equal in their impact.
Contrasting the ineffectiveness of moral outrage for generating signatures, the study identified other emotional dimensions that yield more concrete activist outcomes. Posts emphasizing agency—the belief that individual action matters—group identity, and prosocial values related to helping others were significantly more effective in motivating users to sign petitions, despite attracting less viral attention. This underlines a tension within social media ecosystems: content that fosters a sense of collective efficacy and personal responsibility leads to more direct activism, even though such posts are less likely to go viral.
The researchers aptly describe this tension as a form of ‘double dissociation’ between virality and activism. “We observed that moral outrage correlates strongly with how widely petitions are shared online but bears virtually no relationship to the number of signatures collected,” Dr. Leach explains. “Conversely, prosocial content that encourages help and cooperation predicts greater petition signing but does not increase a post’s virality. This dichotomy highlights the complex social and psychological processes that mediate online political engagement.”
These findings arrive amid escalating debates about the role of social media in shaping political participation, mental health, education, and societal cohesion. Critics argue that platforms’ incentive structures may distort public discourse, prioritizing divisive and sensational content at the expense of meaningful democratic engagement. This study empirically underscores those concerns, emphasizing the importance of moving beyond surface metrics like likes and shares when evaluating the societal impact of social media activism.
Dr. Leach contextualizes the broader societal stakes: “Social media undeniably facilitates the rapid dissemination of information and has democratized the expression of political views. However, our data suggest that the ease of expressing outrage online does not automatically lead to effective collective action. There is a risk that the platforms shape political engagement towards performative outrage rather than sustained efforts that drive real-world change.”
The research team intends to deepen their investigation into the social cognitive mechanisms underlying this disconnect. One hypothesis is that online moral outrage fulfills an immediate emotional need for expression and social validation but may fall short in fostering the critical identification with causes and perceived personal efficacy necessary for collective action. Moreover, algorithmic curation may further distort engagement by amplifying outrage without nurturing the constructive dialogue essential for mobilization.
“The next phase of research aims to comprehend why moral outrage, while so prevalent and potent in online discourse, so often remains divorced from other modes of collective response,” Dr. Leach elaborates. “Understanding these processes is crucial if we are to design social media environments and civic initiatives that translate digital engagement into substantive activism.”
This study calls for a reassessment of how activists, policymakers, and platform designers conceptualize and leverage social media. While moral outrage can play a valuable role in spotlighting injustices and catalyzing initial awareness, it is only part of a broader ecosystem of motivational and communicative factors required for sustained political engagement. Elevated attention to emotional dimensions such as collective identity and agency may be key to bridging the gap between online discourse and political outcomes.
Dr. Leach closes with a note of cautious optimism balanced by healthy skepticism: “We should recognize social media’s potential as a tool for raising awareness but remain critical of its limitations in promoting authentic collective action. Ultimately, fostering a sense of shared purpose and efficacy may be more important than viral outrage in advancing democratic participation in the digital age.”
As this research gains traction, it offers a timely empirical foundation to rethink digital activism strategies. It challenges activists to deploy narrative elements that emphasize connection, purpose, and empowerment rather than relying solely on the emotional high of outrage. Simultaneously, it encourages platform developers and educators to consider how user engagement metrics and content algorithms might better support meaningful political mobilization.
In summary, this pioneering study illuminates a fundamental paradox in the landscape of social media activism: moral outrage serves as a powerful amplifier of petition visibility but does not reliably convert visibility into action. By revealing the subtle psychological currents shaping online activism, it charts a new course for scholars and practitioners seeking to harness the full potential of social media for democratic change.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Moral Outrage Predicts the Virality of Petitions for Change on Social Media, But Not the Number of Signatures They Receive
News Publication Date: 29-Apr-2025
Web References: 10.1177/19485506251335373
References: Provided as above via DOI
Image Credits: Not provided
Keywords: Moral outrage, social media activism, online petitions, collective action, political engagement, virality, prosociality, agency, group identity, digital mobilization
