Biased Motive Inferences of Online Outrage Undermine Cross-Partisan Conversations

Moral outrage spreads widely in online political discourse, but how do people understand others’ outrage expressions? Across three studies (N = 1,855), including behavioral experiments and a field study, we discovered that partisan-biased motive inferences underlie the divergent effects of online outrage expression: While people typically inferred that their in-partisans’ motives for expressing outrage were to raise awareness or inspire action, they tended to infer their political opponents’ motives were to shame or troll. These motive inferences were linked to greater political sectarianism and lower willingness to have a conversation about politics with the outrage expressor. In a fourth study (N = 720), we developed an intervention that changed people’s motive inferences, which improved willingness to have a conversation about politics. These findings highlight the role of motive inferences in shaping contemporary online political discourse filled with strong emotions, and suggest key levers to foster civil interactions among cross-partisans.