In the modern era of social media, it is common to see people publicly broadcasting their moral stances on hot-button issues. This behavior is often labeled as “virtue signaling,” a term that has become a popular insult in political and cultural debates. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the concept as an attempt to show other people that you are a good person. This is often achieved by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to a specific audience, especially on the internet.
The origins of the phrase are somewhat disputed among cultural commentators. British journalist James Bartholomew is often credited with popularizing the term in a 2015 article for The Spectator. He argued that expressing hatred for certain things is often used as camouflage for vanity, allowing people to indirectly boast about their own goodness.
However, the term was in circulation well before 2015. Writing for The Guardian, David Shariatmadari notes that the phrase has existed in isolated pockets since at least 2004. He points out that the insult relates to older, well-regarded idioms like “all talk, no action” or “do as I say, not as I do.”
The concept also shares DNA with the older expression “radical chic,” which was coined by author Tom Wolfe in 1970. Wolfe used that phrase to describe celebrities and socialites who associated with fashionable crusades without any genuine commitment to the cause. Virtue signaling is distinct from radical chic because it is a highly accessible behavior that anyone with a social media account can engage in.
Today, the phrase is frequently used to make an opponent look shallow and self-serving. It casts aspersions on a person’s motives, suggesting their moral opinions are driven by self-regard rather than actual conviction. Because of its widespread use, academics across philosophy and psychology have begun to explore what this behavior actually represents.
The Case Against Moral Grandstanding
In the realm of philosophy, some scholars argue that broadcasting our morality for social points is actively harmful to public discourse. Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke explore this idea in Social Philosophy and Policy, using the term “moral grandstanding” to describe the phenomenon. They define moral grandstanding as the use of moral talk for self-promotion.
According to Tosi and Warmke, grandstanders have a “recognition desire,” meaning they want others to be impressed with their moral purity. People usually engage in this behavior to seek prestige or to exert dominance over others. This desire for status transforms public moral discourse into a vanity project.
The authors outline several problematic behaviors associated with grandstanding, such as “piling on,” where people chime in just to register their inclusion on the right side of an issue. Another behavior is “ramping up,” which occurs when individuals make increasingly extreme claims to outdo earlier commenters. Grandstanders also engage in “trumping up,” which involves insisting there is a moral problem where none actually exists.
Tosi and Warmke argue that these behaviors pose a serious threat to free expression. In a grandstanding-rich environment, people become afraid to challenge popular views or entertain heterodox ideas. The social cost of changing one’s mind becomes too high, leading to a polarized environment where extreme conformity is rewarded over the genuine pursuit of truth.
The Defense of Virtue Signaling
Not all philosophers view this behavior as a net negative for society. Neil Levy defends the practice in the journal Synthese, arguing that the virtues of the behavior typically outweigh its vices. Levy proposes that public moral declarations provide “higher-order evidence” to the community.
Higher-order evidence is a concept referring to evidence about the reliability of the processes that generate our beliefs. For example, if many people confidently share a specific moral judgment, their agreement acts as a rational input for others to consider. The sheer number of people expressing outrage or support gives bystanders a mental shortcut to gauge the validity of a moral stance.
Levy also suggests that the behavior plays a central role in human evolution by helping to solve coordination problems. In large, complex societies, we cannot easily rely on personal gossip to identify who is trustworthy. Public displays of morality act as hard-to-fake signals of our willingness to abide by group norms, helping us delineate reliable cooperators.
In addition, some experts suggest that broadcasting our morals can help us grow as individuals. Leda Berio explores this in Philosophical Psychology, arguing that the behavior can have positive “self-directed mindshaping” effects. Mindshaping is the idea that people mold their own identities and behaviors by publicly committing to social roles.
Berio suggests that when people avow a moral stance publicly, they create “commitment devices” that alter their own incentives. By declaring an identity, the person subjects themselves to public scrutiny, which encourages them to actually align their behavior with their words. As a result, the desire for reputational gains might accidentally push individuals to internalize better moral habits.
However, Berio acknowledges there are risks to this self-shaping process. If a social norm is vague, people might adopt a diluted version of the moral stance that requires very little actual effort. This can lead to the appearance of moral growth without any meaningful change in the person’s real-world actions.
The Line Between Norms and Vanity
The defense of virtue signaling has faced its own pushback from other scholars. Jesse Hill and James Fanciullo offer a rebuttal to Levy and others in the journal Synthese. They argue that the defenders of the practice are actually conflating two entirely different concepts.
Hill and Fanciullo draw a strict distinction between “virtue signaling” and “norm signaling.” Norm signaling simply involves expressing a commitment to a certain rule or moral standard. Virtue signaling, on the other hand, strictly requires the presence of a “recognition desire,” meaning the person is significantly motivated by a need for social praise.
The authors argue that any positive benefits attributed to the behavior are actually just the benefits of basic norm signaling. When vanity and a desire for recognition are introduced, the quality of the public discourse degrades. If a person is motivated by looking good rather than finding the truth, their statements become epistemically unreliable.
Hill and Fanciullo note that if a community is full of people acting out of vanity, observers can no longer trust the signals they are seeing. This ulterior motive weakens the strength of the community’s shared testimony. As a result, the practice undermines the very evidence that people rely on to make rational moral judgments.
The Evolutionary Roots of Moral Reputation
To understand why humans care so much about looking good, it helps to look at the issue through an evolutionary lens. Dan Sperber and Nicolas Baumard examine this in the journal Mind & Language, exploring the deep connection between morality and reputation. They suggest that the biological function of moral behavior is to help individuals secure a good reputation as a cooperator.
In human history, surviving and thriving required constant cooperation with others. Individuals who were known as reliable partners did much better in the “cooperation market.” Because people are choosy about their partners, there is an intense evolutionary pressure to act in ways that make you look like a good choice.
This raises a question about human nature. If the goal is just to look good, wouldn’t humans evolve to be Machiavellian, acting morally only when watched and selfishly when hidden? Sperber and Baumard point out that a purely manipulative strategy is incredibly risky and cognitively exhausting.
Trying to constantly calculate when you are being observed and managing a web of lies is difficult. A single mistake can destroy a person’s reputation permanently. The authors suggest that the easiest and safest way to secure a good moral reputation is to actually develop a genuine, non-instrumental preference for moral behavior.
Attachment Styles and Green Purchasing
Psychology researchers have also begun measuring how our inner emotional lives drive our need to broadcast our virtues. Muhammad Junaid Shahid Hasni and his colleagues explored this in the Journal of Business Ethics. They investigated how different attachment styles influence a person’s likelihood to buy eco-friendly products and engage in prosocial behavior.
Attachment theory suggests that our early relationships with caregivers shape how we connect with others throughout our lives. People generally fall into secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment styles. Avoidant individuals often shun closeness, while anxiously attached individuals fear abandonment and have an intense desire for social acceptance.
Hasni’s team conducted studies with participants from Pakistan, providing a helpful perspective from a non-Western population. They found that people with an anxious attachment style are much more prone to exhibit prosocial behavior and green purchasing habits. Individuals with an avoidant attachment style did not show this same inclination.
The researchers discovered that this relationship is mediated specifically by “self-oriented” virtue signaling. Self-oriented signaling is performed primarily to feel good about oneself and gain self-respect, rather than purely to impress others. Anxiously attached consumers appear to use moral behavior and green consumption as a way to soothe their interpersonal insecurities and validate their own self-worth.
The Dark Side of the Signal
While some people broadcast their morality to soothe their anxieties, others may do so for more manipulative reasons. Ekin Ok and her colleagues investigated this darker side of human nature in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. They examined the concept of the “virtuous victim” signal, which is a public expression of both moral goodness and personal suffering.
The researchers propose that combining a claim of victimhood with a signal of virtue is a highly effective social influence tactic. In modern Western societies, there is a strong cultural desire to alleviate human suffering. When a person convincingly presents themselves as a virtuous victim, observers are highly motivated to transfer resources to them, such as money, respect, or sympathy.
Ok and her team wanted to know what type of person is most likely to frequently emit this dual signal. They hypothesized a connection to the “Dark Triad” of personality. The Dark Triad consists of Machiavellianism (strategic manipulation), narcissism (self-grandiosity), and psychopathy (callousness and impulsivity).
Across several studies, the researchers found that individuals scoring high in Dark Triad traits emit the virtuous victim signal much more frequently. This held true even after controlling for demographic factors that might actually make a person vulnerable to mistreatment. Machiavellianism and “communal narcissism” (a belief in one’s superior helpfulness) were especially strong predictors of this behavior.
The research team also found that frequent virtuous victim signalers were more willing to engage in ethically questionable behaviors. In one study, these individuals were more likely to lie and cheat in a virtual coin-flip game to win a monetary bonus. In another study, they showed a higher willingness to purchase counterfeit shoes and viewed counterfeit producers as more moral.
The findings suggest that some people use the virtuous victim signal opportunistically. Because Dark Triad personalities are unburdened by a traditional moral compass, they can guiltlessly deploy these signals to extract resources from well-meaning bystanders. The research highlights the potential danger of society accepting all claims of victimhood and virtue at face value.
The Antidote to Grandstanding
If broadcasting our morality is often tangled up with vanity, anxiety, and manipulation, what does genuine behavior look like? Christopher Hopwood and his colleagues attempted to answer this in the Journal of Research in Personality. They sought to define a concept they call “realness,” isolating it from the broader and often vague concept of authenticity.
The researchers define realness as behaving on the outside exactly how one feels on the inside, regardless of the personal or social consequences. In classical psychology, authenticity was understood to have both upsides and downsides. However, modern research tools often measure authenticity as a purely positive trait, heavily associating it with being polite or agreeable.
Hopwood’s team argues that being genuinely real often involves violating social norms. A person who is truly real might confront a rude friend or express an unpopular opinion, which can cause friction and disrupt social harmony. True realness prioritize genuineness over being liked, which stands in direct contrast to the recognition desire found in virtue signaling.
To test this, the researchers developed a specific “Realness Scale” and conducted multiple studies. They found that realness is associated with adaptive traits like extraversion and conscientiousness, but it is largely unrelated to agreeableness. In a peer-nomination study, observers rated their “real” friends as significantly less agreeable and less cooperative than their polite, inauthentic friends.
The studies indicate that moments of social risk provide the most valid test of a person’s true character. A person who only expresses their moral views when it earns them praise is not demonstrating realness. Hopwood’s research suggests that true moral behavior requires a willingness to face negative consequences, offering a stark alternative to the superficiality of moral grandstanding.
Ultimately, the act of broadcasting our virtues is a complex knot of human psychology. It is driven by our evolutionary need to be seen as good cooperators, and it can sometimes push us to develop better habits. At the same time, the research provides evidence that the behavior is frequently used by manipulative individuals to extract resources and elevate their own status.
