Kang Muslim
New research published in the peer-reviewed journal Political Psychology suggests that the aggressive nature of modern political discourse is fueled less by specific ideological commitments and more by a primal drive for social status among young men. The study, conducted by Sebastian Jungkunz of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and the University of Bamberg, identifies a specific demographic—men between the ages of 18 and 35—as being uniquely prone to using moral and political discussions as a tool for shaming others and asserting social dominance. This behavior, termed "moral grandstanding," appears to transcend party lines, appearing with equal frequency among those on the far-left and the far-right. The findings suggest that the vitriol often seen in digital and public squares may be a performance of identity and a quest for status rather than a genuine attempt at persuasive dialogue.
In recent decades, political scientists have observed a significant shift in how citizens engage with policy issues. Matters that were once viewed as pragmatic debates over resource allocation or administrative strategy are now frequently framed as absolute moral imperatives. This moralization of politics transforms routine disagreements into existential battles between "good" and "evil," a dynamic that has been linked to increased social fragmentation and the erosion of democratic norms. Within this climate, moral grandstanding has emerged as a primary mode of communication. Unlike simple moral conviction, which is the internal holding of deep beliefs that guide behavior, grandstanding is inherently performative. It involves the public display of moral superiority to enhance one’s own social standing or to diminish the standing of others.
Understanding the Mechanics of Moral Grandstanding
To understand the roots of this behavior, the research distinguishes between two primary motivations for moral grandstanding: prestige-seeking and dominance-seeking. These two paths represent different social strategies used by individuals to navigate their communities and establish their worth.
Prestige-seeking grandstanding is a relatively "pro-social" form of posturing. It occurs when an individual signals their moral goodness to their own "in-group" to gain respect, admiration, and a reputation for being a virtuous member of the community. Examples include sharing content that aligns with group values or using specific terminology that signals one is "on the right side of history." The goal is to be seen as an exemplar of the group’s moral standards.
Dominance-seeking grandstanding, conversely, is an aggressive and "anti-social" strategy. In this mode, individuals do not just seek to look good; they seek to make others look bad. This involves the public shaming of ideological opponents, the use of derisive language, and the assertion that those who disagree are morally or intellectually deficient. The objective is to verbally "crush" rivals and assert a hierarchy where the speaker sits at the top. The research highlights that while prestige-seeking is common across almost all demographic groups, dominance-seeking is heavily concentrated among young men.
Methodology and Cross-National Analysis
The study utilized a robust dataset comprising 8,420 adults from four European nations: Germany, France, Greece, and Hungary. These countries were selected to provide a diverse cross-section of political environments. France and Germany represent established Western European democracies with varying degrees of populist influence; Greece offers a perspective from a Mediterranean nation that has faced significant economic and political upheaval; and Hungary provides insight into a Central European context with a high degree of political polarization and illiberal trends.
Participants, ranging in age from 18 to 69, completed the Moral Grandstanding Motivations Scale (MGMS). This psychological tool requires respondents to rate their agreement with statements designed to uncover their underlying motivations for political speech. To measure prestige-seeking, participants responded to prompts such as, "I want to be known as someone who is principled." To measure dominance-seeking, they reacted to statements like, "I share my beliefs to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them." The survey also tracked education levels, gender identity, and specific political party preferences.
The Demographic Divide: Age, Gender, and Status
The most significant finding of the study was the stark correlation between age, gender, and dominance-seeking behavior. Young men in the 18-35 age bracket consistently outscored every other demographic group on the dominance scale. Interestingly, this behavior was not tied to any specific political platform. A young man supporting a progressive environmentalist party was just as likely to engage in dominance-seeking grandstanding as a young man supporting a nationalist, far-right faction.
The data showed that an 18-year-old man typically scored an entire point higher on a seven-point scale for dominance-seeking than a woman of the same age. This gender gap, however, is not permanent. As participants aged, the tendency to use political shaming as a tool for dominance steadily declined. By the time respondents reached middle age, the gap between men and women narrowed significantly, and among the oldest cohorts (those in their 60s), the differences in dominance-seeking behavior were statistically negligible.
In contrast, prestige-seeking grandstanding showed no such demographic concentration. Men and women across all age groups and political affiliations showed a moderate and similar inclination to use moral expression to build their reputations within their peer groups. This suggests that the desire to be "respected" for one’s views is a universal human trait, whereas the desire to "dominate" through those views is a specific behavioral pattern associated with young adulthood and masculinity.
The Role of Precarious Masculinity and Digital Spaces
The research points to several sociological and psychological factors that may explain why young men are particularly prone to these behaviors. Sociologists have long discussed the concept of "precarious masculinity"—the idea that manhood is a social status that must be constantly earned and defended through public action. In the absence of traditional rites of passage or clear economic markers of success, young men may turn to "verbal combat" in the political arena to perform their masculinity and assert dominance.
Furthermore, the modern digital landscape acts as an accelerant for these tendencies. Social media algorithms are designed to prioritize engagement, which is often most easily generated through outrage and conflict. For a young man seeking social validation, a "viral" takedown of a political opponent provides immediate, quantifiable feedback in the form of likes, shares, and comments. This creates a feedback loop where aggressive moral posturing is incentivized by the platform’s architecture. Young adulthood is also a critical period for identity formation, and in a polarized society, political "warrior" status offers a ready-made identity for those navigating the transition to adulthood.
Political Extremism vs. Party Ideology
One of the study’s most critical contributions to the understanding of polarization is the finding that the extremity of one’s views is a better predictor of grandstanding than the content of those views. While moderate supporters of both left-wing and right-wing parties showed lower levels of grandstanding, those at the fringes of the political spectrum—regardless of side—were highly prone to both prestige-seeking and dominance-seeking behaviors.
This suggests a "horseshoe effect" in the psychology of political communication: the far-left and the far-right share more in common regarding their rhetorical strategies than they do with the moderates of their own respective movements. For radicals, moral grandstanding serves as a "costly signal" of loyalty to the cause, proving that they are more committed and more "pure" than the average supporter.
Implications for Public Discourse and Policy
The implications of Jungkunz’s research are significant for those seeking to mitigate political polarization. If a substantial portion of hostile political speech is driven by a demographic’s search for social status rather than a disagreement over policy, then factual corrections or ideological debates may be ineffective in cooling tensions.
The research suggests that to improve public discourse, society may need to find alternative, constructive avenues for young people—particularly young men—to establish their social identities and achieve status. When status is tied to communal contribution or professional achievement rather than the public shaming of "others," the incentive for dominance-seeking grandstanding may diminish.
Furthermore, the study highlights the need for a critical look at how digital platforms are moderated. If algorithms continue to reward "dominance-seeking" behaviors because they drive engagement, the public square will remain a site of performative conflict rather than productive deliberation.
Limitations and Future Research
Jungkunz noted that the study relied on online survey panels, which may over-represent individuals who are already highly active in digital spaces. Given that the internet is the primary theater for moral grandstanding, this could mean the levels of grandstanding reported are higher than in the general offline population.
Future research is expected to expand these findings to different political systems, such as the two-party environment of the United States, where the "winner-take-all" nature of politics might further incentivize dominance-seeking. Additionally, scholars are interested in whether economic factors, such as high youth unemployment or housing instability, exacerbate the need for status-seeking through moral grandstanding. If young men feel they are losing ground in the real world, they may be more likely to seek "victories" in the virtual world by shaming their perceived enemies.
Ultimately, "The age of virtue signaling: Moral grandstanding as competitive display among young men" provides a vital psychological map of the modern political landscape. It moves the conversation beyond "what" people believe to "why" they express those beliefs in such increasingly hostile ways, pointing to a deep-seated human need for status that has found a dangerous outlet in the moralization of politics.
