A new study argues that a lot of public moral and political talk is not just about beliefs or values, but also about status. The authors call this moral grandstanding — meaning the use of moral or political language to make oneself look admirable, important, or superior in front of others.
That idea matters because many people assume toxic political discussion is mostly driven by ideology alone. But this study suggests that, in many cases, the deeper motive may be competition for attention, respect, or dominance within a social group.
In simpler terms, the study suggests that some hostile or showy political behavior may work a bit like chest-thumping. Instead of calmly trying to persuade others, a person may be trying to win, shame rivals, or signal that they are tougher, purer, or more committed than everyone else.
The study was based on a large sample of 8,420 participants, which gives the findings more weight than a typical small-scale study.
It also helps explain why some discussions feel impossible to de-escalate. If a conversation is really about status competition, then facts alone may not calm things down — because the real goal is not understanding, but social victory.
Source: Jungkunz et al. (2026), The age of virtue signaling: Moral grandstanding as competitive display, Political Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/pops.70132
That idea matters because many people assume toxic political discussion is mostly driven by ideology alone. But this study suggests that, in many cases, the deeper motive may be competition for attention, respect, or dominance within a social group.
Who does it most?
The most striking finding is demographic. Young men aged 18–35 showed the highest levels of dominance-oriented moral grandstanding — and this pattern appeared regardless of political party. In other words, it was not a left-wing or right-wing thing. It cut across the political spectrum.In simpler terms, the study suggests that some hostile or showy political behavior may work a bit like chest-thumping. Instead of calmly trying to persuade others, a person may be trying to win, shame rivals, or signal that they are tougher, purer, or more committed than everyone else.
Two purposes at once
This does not mean that every passionate political comment is fake or selfish. It means that moral language can sometimes serve two purposes at once: expressing a genuine belief and boosting the speaker's standing in the eyes of other people.The study was based on a large sample of 8,420 participants, which gives the findings more weight than a typical small-scale study.
Why does this matter?
Because it helps explain why online arguments so often become theatrical, cruel, and repetitive: people may not only be defending ideas, but also performing for an audience.It also helps explain why some discussions feel impossible to de-escalate. If a conversation is really about status competition, then facts alone may not calm things down — because the real goal is not understanding, but social victory.
The takeaway
Not all "virtue signaling" is hypocrisy, but some of it may be a competitive display dressed up as moral concern. And that urge to compete for moral prestige appears to be more universal than any particular ideology.Source: Jungkunz et al. (2026), The age of virtue signaling: Moral grandstanding as competitive display, Political Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/pops.70132