Young people between the ages of 18 and 35, regardless of their political beliefs, tend to use moral and political arguments to shame others and assert superiority. This pattern suggests that hostile political expressions may be driven by an underlying desire for social status rather than loyalty to a particular party. The study was published in the journal Political Psychology.
Political dialogue has become increasingly moralized in recent decades. People often frame standard policy disagreements as absolute moral obligations. This turns everyday debates into battles between perceptions of good and evil, creating a dynamic that deeply divides society.
As political positions became associated with personal virtues, a phenomenon known as moral standing emerged. Elevating moral status involves publicly expressing moral superiority in order to enhance one’s own social status. This is related to the colloquial concept of virtue communication, but focuses specifically on the performative elements of political expression.
Moral status is different from simple moral beliefs. People with strong moral beliefs have deep beliefs that shape their attitudes and actions. Grandstanding is unique because of its social motivation. It’s not just about holding deep beliefs, it’s also about displaying those beliefs to an audience for social rewards.
People participate in debates about public morality for genuinely principled reasons, such as defending social justice and ethical values. Moral status is different because the underlying motivation is a desire for recognition rather than a commitment to moral consequences.
Sebastian Jungkunz, a researcher at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and the University of Bamberg in Germany, set out to understand the demographic roots of this behavior. Previous research has focused on how psychological traits such as narcissism predict public attention. Jungkunz wanted to determine how these behaviors differed by age, gender, and political affiliation.
Moral status manifests itself in two different ways. The first is grandstanding, seeking fame. This occurs when individuals communicate their moral goodness to like-minded peers, arousing admiration and gaining respect within their own group.
The second type is grandstanding, which seeks superiority. In this version, individuals denigrate and shame ideological opponents as morally or politically deficient. The goal is to actively compete with rivals and assert social dominance.
Jungkunz theorized that these motivations may vary by age and gender. Adolescence is a transitional period of identity formation, and young people often navigate highly polarized digital spaces. Social media platforms provide instant peer validation and can powerfully encourage performative moral displays. The algorithms on these websites often reward emotionally appealing content and prominently display expressions of anger.
At the same time, young men often face unique social pressures regarding status. Sociologists describe masculinity as a precarious status. In other words, masculinity requires continuous public demonstration and is often perceived as something that can be easily lost. Moral status seeking dominance can function as a compensatory behavior, allowing young men to publicly display their masculinity by verbally defeating their opponents.
Women are often socialized to prioritize relational harmony and communal values. Based on this historical socialization, Jungkunz suspected that women would participate more in seeking honor and standing out. He hypothesized that they use moral expressions not to shame others, but to foster a sense of solidarity and promote collective action.
To test these ideas, Jungkunz analyzed survey data from 8,420 adults in Germany, France, Greece, and Hungary. He selected these countries because they represent a wide variety of political cultures, institutional histories, and levels of polarization. Study participants included a representative sample of adults aged 18 to 69 years.
The researchers used a specific survey questionnaire called the Moral Support Motivation Scale. Participants rated their agreement with various statements on a 7-point scale. To measure honor-seeking, participants responded to statements such as “I want to be on the right side of history when it comes to moral and political issues.”
To assess dominance-seeking tendencies, participants rated statements that asserted a desire to oppress others. For example, they responded to the prompt, “When I share my beliefs, I do so to show those who disagree with me that I am better than them.” The survey also collected comprehensive demographic data, including age, gender identity, education level, and the political party participants plan to support in the next national election.
This data reveals striking demographic patterns in how people express moral superiority. The most significant differences were found in the control-seeking category. Young men between the ages of 18 and 35 consistently reported the highest levels of dominance-oriented moral status.
This means that young men are the group most likely to use aggressive moral violence to defeat their opponents. This pattern held almost perfectly regardless of which political party young people supported. Young people scored similarly high on control-seeking behavior, whether they supported the progressive Green Party or the conservative far-right.
Women scored significantly lower on the dominance scale. The disparity between men and women in control-seeking behavior was particularly large among the youngest respondents. A typical 18-year-old male scored one point higher on the dominance scale than a female of the exact same age.
As people grew older, the tendency to control political opponents through moral shame steadily decreased. Gender differences in control-seeking behavior narrowed significantly among middle-aged respondents. Among the oldest respondents, the differences between men and women were virtually nonexistent.
Grandstanding in search of fame followed a completely different pattern. The desire to be seen as inspirational and gain respect from colleagues was widely distributed across age, gender, and political affiliation. Most of the people surveyed indicated that they tend to share their moral beliefs in order to look good to their social group.
Contrary to the original hypothesis, women did not display higher levels of prestige-seeking feats than men. Men and women were generally similar in their tendency to adopt moral stances to improve their reputation within their own group.
When it comes to party affiliation, basic party preferences were surprisingly unimportant for either type of ranking. Rather, the extremeness of an individual’s political views was far more important. Individuals with very radical views on either the far left or the far right were more likely to obtain moral status than those with moderate views.
These findings challenge the common narrative that aggressive political discourse is purely a product of left-wing or right-wing party platforms. Rather, demographic factors and individual psychological needs determine how citizens participate in public debate. Young men especially seem to be attracted to combative, status-seeking rhetorical strategies.
Jungkunz pointed out several caveats regarding this methodology. Because this study is based on an online survey panel, there may be a slight overrepresentation of people who are highly active in the digital space. This sampling method may have influenced the severity of our findings, as the modern Internet highly rewards adversarial engagement.
Future research could examine these dynamics in different political environments, such as the U.S. two-party system. Researchers might also investigate how local economic conditions affect moral status. For example, scholars might be able to assess whether individuals facing financial hardship are more likely to engage in control-seeking behaviors out of frustration.
Understanding these demographic patterns can help address the root causes of political polarization. If hostile political discourse is driven by young people competing for position, resolving ideological disagreements alone may not be enough to ease social tensions. Improving public debate may require young people to find alternative and constructive ways to establish their social identities.
The study, “The Age of Virtue Signaling: Moral Status as an Exhibition of Competitiveness Among Young People,” was authored by Sebastian Jungkunz.
Heading options
- Young men lead hostile moral support
- Virtue signaling and social dominance among young people.
- Why young people use moral outrage to dominate political discussions
- Status-seeking fuels harmful political debate among young people
- Demographics predict moral status better than politics
- Age and gender shape how we discuss morality
- The psychological roots of performative political anger
- Does your political party predict your virtue signaling?
- How social validation fosters aggressive political debate
- Prestige and dominance in everyday political debate
- Are young people our most aggressive moral defenders?
- Why online political debates are full of moral disgrace
- The performative nature of moral superiority in politics
