Digital moral distortion: How social media can negatively shape our judgement of right and wrong
Reviewers: Hannah Logeman and Vladimir Bojarskic
Editorial Assistant: Elena Benini
Social media is far more than a tool for communication, it is a digital social environment at scale. Unlike any other space before it, social media platforms expose us to the judgements of others. From expressions of admiration to condemnation, we are immersed in the opinions of others with unprecedented frequency. In this article, we explore how such online environments hold the potential to distort our perception of societal consensus on core moral issues and influence our understanding of what is considered right and wrong in society.
Figure 1. What people see as right and wrong can be distorted on social media.
For over half of the world's population, social media is a regular part of life. It is where many of us connect with others and stay updated on topics of personal and global interest. However, social media platforms are far more than communication tools, they are large-scale, digital social environments, immersing us in the emotions, judgements, and values of others. Once online, we are flooded with signals of approval, admiration, outrage, and condemnation, shaping our perception of others' thoughts and, in turn, potentially shaping our own. In these environments, it is especially our sense of morality, the unwritten rules about what is considered as right and wrong behaviour within a society, that can be strongly influenced by others' reactions [1].
Consider, for instance, the viral moment when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the Oscars who made a joke about Will Smith’s wife. Comments online became the battleground of moral discourse. Some defended him for protecting his wife, while many condemned his physical aggression. The number of reactions received can serve as a powerful moral signal, leading us to perceive one opinion as widely endorsed, and thus more justified, than another. Research provides support for this idea: likes and shares can not only boost a post’s reach, but can also intensify how strongly people respond to perceived moral violations [2]. Consensus on such topics, even those that seem trivial, can be essential for social cohesion, as they set shared expectations for what’s considered fair and appropriate behaviour, and help us live harmoniously with others. Nonetheless, the process of learning these underlying moral rules through social media is flawed.
Unlike other social environments, social media platforms are built to reward attention. They often favour the most emotional, sensational, or provocative content. As a result, our ability to reason about good and bad behaviour may suffer because of the emphasis placed on such attention-grabbing content. While many of us will recognise this experience, where striking images, dramatic wording, and rage-filled comments dominate our social media feeds, other forces can also hurt our moral reasoning [3]. In this article, we detail psychological evidence on the role of moral outrage, polarisation, misinformation, and status-seeking on social media in negatively shaping our moral judgements, with potential consequences extending beyond its digital confines and into everyday life.
Figure 2. Moral outrage is common online and can fuel hostility and distort moral judgements.
Fuelling the fire: How moral outrage often goes viral
Social media algorithms are trained to aim for high user engagement by encouraging longer daily use times, as well as more reactions, comments, and (re)posts [4]. Importantly, research indicates that moral and emotional content, particularly content that heightens feelings of danger, increases engagement compared to other kinds of content [2, 5]. On X (formerly Twitter), for example, adding a single moral-emotional word, such as ‘attack’, ‘evil’, or ‘hate’, raises expected reposts by about 17–24% [5]. As a result, social media platforms tend to elevate striking moral issues to the top of our feeds. This process of prioritising moral content amplifies the visibility of what is known as ‘moral outrage’, a strong sense of irritation and disapproval a person may express on a topic because it violates their core moral values.
A striking example of such moral outrage occurred in 2017, when videos of Dr. David Dao went viral online. In the footage, the physician who was on his way to treat patients was physically assaulted and forcefully dragged off a United Airlines flight. Quickly, uploads using moral-emotional words such as ‘brutal’ and ‘disgraceful’ dominated feeds, condemning the aggression directed at the 69-year-old. The incident became a headline-grabbing media storm, causing significant backlash for the airline and prompting serious changes to their customer-handling policies.
Nonetheless, even when outrage is seemingly justified, a small, highly active minority dominates most users' feeds, and it is this minority's most outrage-inducing posts that we are very frequently exposed to online [6]. While developing a picture of societal consensus on moral issues, a loud minority may thus shape what we view as common agreement. This can make such outraged reactions appear far more common than they actually are [6], [7].
Importantly, the perception of widespread moral outrage can have significant real-world consequences. For instance, frequent exposure to political discussions online can lead people to overestimate others’ moral outrage and, in turn, see relations between groups as more hostile than they actually are [7].
Moral outrage may initially be directed at a single post or individual. Yet, through repeated exposure, it can generalise into hostility toward the broader group that person represents. In this way, moral outrage online can, over time, strengthen hostility between groups, deepening division on core moral issues.
Figure 3. Social media can divide us on moral issues by distorting how we view others’ perspectives.
Us vs. them: The pull of polarisation
Social media platforms learn about our preferences, building a picture of who we are and curating content that fits our identity. This emphasis on one’s identity and the groups we belong to can strengthen the divide between those who belong to “our” groups and those who don’t. Across platforms, posts that name and target an outgroup are especially likely to spread [8]. This creates visible social rewards for moral messaging that divides groups and makes conflict between groups seem widespread. These segmented digital environments can foster polarisation, a process through which moral judgements become gradually more extreme over time and split along group lines [9].
Research has highlighted how social media use may contribute to polarisation. A large field experiment assigned a group of American Facebook users to deactivate their accounts for 6 weeks before the 2020 US election. Users who deactivated their accounts were found to have less polarised perspectives on central political issues in this specific election context, compared to those who stayed online [10]. Such findings align with broader concerns that algorithms can reinforce identity and polarise societies. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand how this process applies to Facebook use outside of the U.S.
Hashtags often act as visible markers of this polarisation. For example, when #BlackLivesMatter trended, #AllLivesMatter replies rose in parallel. Each hashtag became a group signal used to show loyalty to one side and to criticise the other. Such a split creates the impression of two large, opposing camps, with the perception of limited room or prevalence for nuanced positions.
By increasing a sense of agreement about what is seen as right and wrong within a group, platforms can close our eyes to the perspectives of others. On top of that, posts that convey strong positions that align with our own views often attract more engagement, which further fuels polarisation.
Figure 4. Misinformation spreads widely online and can distort our understanding of moral issues.
When lies look like truth: The threat of misinformation
Social media platforms are rife with misinformation, false or misleading claims, whether intentional or not. False claims wrapped in moral-emotional language are often more shocking and shared more quickly because of the strong reactions they can provoke [10]. This is not only an abstract concern. Misinformation can reshape what users perceive as justified beliefs and actions [11], redirecting blame and strengthening condemnation.
A large-scale investigation of misinformation analysed 9518 cases of false and misleading claims about COVID-19 across 138 countries. The findings suggest that misinformation is alarmingly prevalent with social media accounting for nearly 85% of the misinformation cases studied [12]. Compounding this problem is that many users struggle to distinguish fact from fiction. In a large survey, two-thirds of respondents reported difficulty judging whether claims on social media were true or false [13]. Together, this means that moralised misinformation not only spreads quickly but can often look correct.
A real-life example of this process was visible during the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Social media was filled with many posts warning about hidden harms and framing vaccine refusal as a moral duty. These narratives often shifted blame from the virus and onto institutions and citizens. The result can be a false sense that many people support extreme positions, even when they lack scientific evidence.
Misinformation on social media is, therefore, a serious pitfall to the formation of measured moral judgements. Given the difficulty of recognising misinformation, online discussions can mislead users and convince them of moral perspectives that are based on incorrect information.
Figure 5. The pursuit of social status online can distort how we and others respond to moral issues.
Virtue for show: The hidden motive behind moral posts
People express their views on moral issues online for a range of reasons: some are genuinely prosocial, such as bringing attention to injustice, while others are more self-serving, like signalling group loyalty or superiority, to enhance their reputation. As moral behaviour drives positive evaluation by those in our social circle, social media users may choose to express outrage as a form of ‘moral grandstanding’, the pursuit of social status through public expression of moral views. Such status-seeking behaviour often comes at the expense of thoughtful discussion, because it can encourage users to exaggerate their reactions to minor violations or hold rigid views. In this way, moral judgements become performances rather than reasoned opinions.
This mechanism is supported by research. People are more likely to express harsher moral judgements when they know others are watching. In laboratory settings, individuals are about 1.5 times more likely to punish unfair behaviour when their actions are visible to an audience [14]. This suggests that our moral behaviour is shaped by our concern to fit in with others, and over time elevate our status. Online, where our actions are seen by a large audience and where public engagement metrics are visible, the pressure to act morally is especially intensified.
A clear example of this pressure was the 2021 “Bean Dad” incident. A father made a post recounting, humorously, how he had encouraged his 9-year-old daughter to figure out how to use a can opener. The post triggered a wave of online outrage against the father, with many users joining in on the bandwagon of hate, and some even accusing him of child abuse. Though the original post was arguably mundane, it was reframed through a moral lens and amplified by the platform’s reward structure. Users joining in on the condemnation gained engagement through ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ on their own content, while the father was forced to delete his account and apologise. This minor episode trended on social media over significant global developments, illustrating how the incentive to express strong opposition to elevate one’s own status can turn even minor issues online into headline-level moral discourse.
Social media can thereby encourage users to express moral values, and when driven by a desire for social status, such expressions may undermine nuanced moral judgement.
What can be done?
So far, we have discussed how social media can skew our understanding of right and wrong. Diminishing these negative effects of social media on our moral judgements can be challenging, and research on how to tackle moral distortion online remains limited. Nonetheless, proposals to help users navigate social media more effectively do exist. One approach is the use of digital literacy programs. These offer means to educate users about the pitfalls and best practices around social media. Participants could, for example, be presented with the SIFT method [15], which they may apply to engage with morally charged content. When viewing a post, users could be encouraged to:
1. Stop: Resist instant reacting/resharing.
2. Investigate: Check who posted it and what they stand to gain (e.g., attention, status).
3. Find: Open two credible sources and see if the key claim holds.
4. Trace: Follow the post and the evidence it provides to its origin.
By teaching effective thinking frameworks, digital literacy programs can help users slow their reactions to outrage, reduce misinformation uptake, and remind them that visibility for status is not the same as consensus.
In light of identity-driven social media feeds, opportunities to understand the full spectrum of opinions and consider alternative perspectives may also strengthen our moral judgements. Initiatives, such as the comparison platform ‘Ground News’, provide side-by-side coverage of global news and label outlets for political bias. Such platforms make it much easier for users to see the flip side of an issue and recognise underreported viewpoints. Users may then be less likely to assume that opinions are unanimous and more willing to consider opposing moral perspectives. A broader understanding of opinions may also make users more critical of the claims they read and highlight the value of different views instead of following one to boost their own status.
Conclusion
Social media can increasingly contribute to our judgement of what is considered right and wrong in society. Psychological evidence suggests that the mechanisms of moral outrage, polarisation, misinformation, and status-seeking are potentially responsible for a distorted sense of societal agreement on various moral issues. Nonetheless, much more needs to be understood in order to fully grasp the dark consequences of social media on our moral judgements. To complicate matters further, social media may at times actually help address important societal issues. When channelled constructively, moral outrage could motivate people to act against real-world injustices, for example, by adopting a more sustainable lifestyle [16]. The effects of social media on our judgements are, therefore, nuanced and require more research and discussion. So, what do you think? Has social media negatively shaped how we judge right and wrong? Are our moral judgments a reflection of our values, or of what we think others want us to say online? Should we be more cautious about how online outrage, moral signalling, or misinformation affects us? Want to discuss? Leave your thoughts as a comment!
Bibliography
[1] S. Vahed, C. Goanta, P. Ortolani, and A. G. Sanfey, “Moral judgment of objectionable online content: Reporting decisions and punishment preferences on
social media,” PLoS ONE, vol. 19, no. 3, Mar. 2024, Art. no. e0300960, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300960.
[2] C. Puryear, J. A. Vandello, and K. Gray, “Moral panics on
social media are fueled by signals of virality.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 84–103, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1037/pspa0000379.
[3] J. J. Van Bavel, C. E. Robertson, K. Del Rosario, J. Rasmussen, and S. Rathje, “Social media and morality,” Ann. Rev. Psychol., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 311–340, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258.
[4] W. J. Brady, J. C. Jackson, M. Doyle, and S. Baier, “Engagement-based algorithms disrupt human
social norm learning,” OSF Preprints, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mgdwq_v1 (Accessed: Jul. 7, 2025).
[5] W. J. Brady, J. A. Wills, J. T. Jost, J. A. Tucker, and J. J. Van Bavel, “Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sci. U.S.A., vol. 114, no. 28, pp. 7313–7318, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618923114.
[6] C. E. Robertson, K. S. Del Rosario, and J. J. Van Bavel, “Inside the Funhouse Mirror Factory: How
Social media distorts perceptions of norms,” Curr. Opin. Psychol., vol. 60, Dec. 2024, Art. no. 101918, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101918.
[7] W. J. Brady, K. L. McLoughlin, M. P. Torres, K. F. Luo, M. Gendron, and M. J. Crockett, “Overperception of moral outrage in online social networks inflates beliefs about intergroup hostility,” Nat. Hum. Behav., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 917–927, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01582-0.
[8] S. Rathje, J. J. Van Bavel, and S. Van Der Linden, “Out-group animosity drives engagement on
social media,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 118, no. 26, Jun. 2021, Art. no. e2024292118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024292118.
[9] L. Iandoli, S. Primario, and G. Zollo, “The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in
social media: A systematic literature review,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 170, Jun. 2021, Art. no. 120924, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120924.
[10] H. Allcott et al., “The effects of Facebook and Instagram on the 2020 election: A deactivation experiment,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 121, no. 21, May 2024, Art. no. e2321584121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2321584121.
[11] K. L. McLoughlin, W. J. Brady, A. Goolsbee, B. Kaiser, K. Klonick, and M. J. Crockett, “Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online,” Science, vol. 386, no. 6725, pp. 991–996, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1126/science.adl2829.[12] Md. S. Al-Zaman, “Prevalence and source analysis of COVID-19
misinformation in 138 countries,” IFLA J., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 189–204, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1177/03400352211041135.
[13] J. P. Stimpson and A. N. Ortega, “Social media users’ perceptions about health mis- and disinformation on
social media,” Health Aff. Scholar, vol. 1, no. 4, Sep. 2023, Art. no. qxad050, doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxad050.
[14] R. Kurzban, P. DeScioli, and E. O’Brien, “Audience effects on moralistic punishment,” Evol. Hum. Behav., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 75–84, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001.
[15] University of Chicago Library, “Evaluating resources and
misinformation,” Library Guides, [Online]. Available: https://guides.lib.uchicago.edu/c.php?g=1241077&p=9082322 (Accessed: Jul. 22, 2025) [16] N. Antadze, “Moral Outrage as the Emotional Response to Climate Injustice,” Environ. Justice, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–26, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1089/env.2019.0038.
Images
Figure 1: Credit: PhonlamaiPhoto; Picture was purchased on istockphoto.com for public use
(order number: 2105132186)
Figure 2: https://unsplash.com/de/@momheise
Figure 3: Credit: Andrii Yalanskyi; Picture was purchased on istockphoto.com for public use
(order number: 2105132213)
Figure 4: Credit: cyano66; Picture was purchased on istockphoto.com for public use (order
number: 2105132269)
Figure 5: Credit: milindri; Picture was purchased on istockphoto.com for public use (order
number: 2105132316)
