Sincerity Signals: Why Perceived Motives Make or Break Online Activism

A single post can ripple across a social network in minutes, carrying a call to action from one user to thousands of strangers. Yet the reach of that post says little about whether anyone will actually act on it. New research from Flinders University suggests that the decisive factor may not be the message itself, nor the size of the audience, but something far more subtle: what bystanders believe is going on inside the mind of the person who posted it. When online activists are seen as sincerely motivated, their calls to action spread and mobilise. When they are seen as acting for self-serving reasons, the same calls fall flat, and the movement they hoped to build stalls at the screen.

The study, published in the journal New Media & Society, was led by Dr Lisette Yip of Flinders’ College of Human Sciences and Culture, working with colleagues Emma Thomas, Hawa Muhammad Farid and Noor Tahir. The team set out to examine the role social media plays in expanding social movements, and specifically to test whether perceptions about the motives of online activists affect the willingness of others to participate. Their conclusion, drawn from three experiments, is blunt: perceptions of insincerity measurably dampen the persuasive power of online collective action, making bystanders less likely to sign petitions or take any other action for a cause.

The question the researchers posed is one that anyone who has scrolled through a politically charged feed will recognise. Social media is an important tool used by supporters of social movements to persuade others to participate, but people who engage in online collective action may be perceived as acting for self-serving reasons. As Dr Yip explains, these perceptions can greatly impact the effectiveness of collective action. If a user suspects that a poster is performing concern rather than feeling it, the post risks being dismissed as virtue signalling, and the opportunity to recruit a new supporter is lost before it ever materialises.

To investigate this, the researchers designed three experiments in which participants encountered social media content urging them to take action for a political cause. Some participants viewed individual posts, while others were shown an immersive social media feed designed to mimic the experience of scrolling through a real platform. Crucially, the activists in these scenarios varied in the motives they expressed. In one condition, the poster indicated acting out of genuine concern for the cause, what the researchers describe as autonomous motivation. In another, the poster indicated acting to avoid guilt and social disapproval, a pattern the researchers call controlled motivation. A baseline condition did not specify a motive at all, allowing the team to measure how unlabelled posts were judged.

The results followed a consistent pattern across the experiments. Participants who viewed posts expressing controlled motivation perceived the user as being less autonomously motivated, and that perception carried real consequences. These participants were less likely to socially identify as supporters of the cause, and less likely to take collective action themselves. In practical terms, the perception of external pressure or self-protection behind a post made viewers less willing to sign a petition or engage in any other behaviour on behalf of the movement. The motive attributed to the messenger, in other words, transferred to the audience’s own sense of whether the cause deserved their commitment.

This finding connects to a broader psychological framework in which motivation is understood along a spectrum from autonomous to controlled. Autonomous motivation reflects actions performed because they align with one’s own values and genuine interest, while controlled motivation reflects actions performed because of external pressure, guilt, shame, or the desire to avoid social disapproval. The Flinders experiments suggest that this distinction is not merely internal to the activist. It is read, inferred and judged by audiences, and those judgements shape whether a movement grows or stagnates. A post that signals obligation rather than conviction invites readers to conclude that the cause is one people support only under duress, which is a poor advertisement for joining.

The implications for organisers of social movements are significant. As Dr Yip notes, movements will be more effective at mobilising online support when they are seen to come from autonomous motives. Her advice to activists and to anyone hoping to convince peers to support a cause is to consider the underlying motives conveyed in their messages, and to seek to foster genuine concern among their audiences so that those audiences, too, can become effective advocates. In this view, persuasion online is not simply a matter of broadcasting information widely. It is a matter of modelling the kind of motivation that others will find credible and want to adopt for themselves.

That said, the research does not suggest that motive-driven scepticism renders online activism worthless. The study indicates that social media posts may help raise awareness about social issues regardless of the motives behind them. A post from an externally pressured activist can still inform people that a problem exists. What it cannot do as effectively is convert that awareness into participation. The advocates who are perceived as being externally motivated are less effective than those who are perceived as sincere, which means awareness and mobilisation, though related, are not the same achievement. Movements that measure success by impressions alone may be overestimating their reach into actual engagement.

The findings also speak to a familiar cultural anxiety about online discourse: the accusation of virtue signalling. The title of the paper, ‘Are they virtue-signalling or sincere? The impact of perceived motives on the effectiveness of online collective action’, places that accusation at the centre of the analysis rather than treating it as background noise. The experiments suggest the accusation is not merely rhetorical. When bystanders judge a poster to be signalling virtue rather than expressing conviction, the persuasive chain breaks. Because social movements depend on chains of influence, in which one convinced supporter recruits another, a single perceived insincerity can have outsized effects as it propagates through networks of friends, followers and their followers in turn.

For the study of collective action in the digital era, the work adds an important layer to existing models of why people join movements. Traditional accounts have emphasised factors such as grievance, efficacy, identity and network exposure. This research highlights the inference of motive as a distinct and consequential variable, one that operates in the space between the activist’s message and the bystander’s decision. The method of research was data and statistical analysis of the experimental responses, and the paper appeared in New Media & Society on 5 September 2026. As platforms continue to mediate how causes are promoted and contested, the lesson for activists is clear: audiences are not only reading what is posted, they are reading why, and their willingness to act follows that reading closely.

Subject of Research: How perceived motives of online activists influence bystanders' willingness to participate in collective action

Article Title: Perceptions steer our scrutiny of online activists

Article References: Perceptions steer our scrutiny of online activists. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: social media, collective action, online activism, perceived motives, social movements, Flinders University, New Media and Society, mobilisation, virtue signalling, autonomous motivation, petition signing, digital persuasion