In a recent study, Claire Robertson and her co-authors explore how the internet has fundamentally altered human moral psychology. The paper, “Morality in the Anthropocene: The Perversion of Compassion and Punishment in the Online World,” discusses the significant impact of the internet on our evolved moral responses, particularly compassion and punishment.

The authors argue that the internet’s vast scale and the psychological distance it creates between individuals disrupt our natural tendencies to feel compassion for victims and to punish wrongdoers. This disruption leads to phenomena such as compassion fatigue, increased public shaming, ineffective collective action, and virtue signaling.

These changes highlight the mismatch between our evolved moral instincts and the modern online environment, suggesting important implications for both individuals and society.

Claire Robertson took some time to discuss the paper with SCINQ.

What initially inspired you to explore the intersection of morality and online behavior?

I became interested in online human behavior because of the internet’s rapid and pervasive impact on our social lives. The advent of the internet is arguably the fastest technological revolution in human history.

Since its mainstream introduction just 41 years ago, the number of internet users worldwide has surged to over 5.4 billion. While the internet has significantly expanded human knowledge and computing power, it has also introduced new challenges.

Our brains, which evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, are not equipped to handle the complexities of online interactions. Basic cognitive processes that were adaptive offline can become problematic in the online world. This conflict is central to my research, which examines how the structure of the internet distorts fundamental social and cognitive processes.

Can you summarize the main findings of your study on moral behavior in online contexts? What are the implications of public shaming in online communities?

In our study, we argue that the extreme scale and distance of the internet distort basic moral processes such as compassion and punishment. While our responses online are not fundamentally different from those offline, their consequences can be unintended in a new context.

For example, online social networks are much larger than the small, tribal groups humans evolved in. We now connect with thousands of people daily, far exceeding the social circles of our ancestors. While punishing moral transgressors was adaptive in small groups by signaling that bad behavior is unacceptable and deterring future cheaters, the scale of online punishment can become disproportionate.

A notable example is Justine Sacco, who faced public shaming by over a million people for a racist tweet in 2013. This disproportionate shaming can backfire, as research shows that excessive online criticism can lead to sympathy for the transgressor, reducing the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent (Sawaoka & Monin, 2018).

Can you elaborate on the concept of “supernormal stimuli” and its relevance to online moral content?

Supernormal stimuli are exaggerated versions of environmental cues that organisms are predisposed to respond to. For example, modern fast food is a supernormal stimulus; people evolved to crave fatty and calorically dense foods for survival, but this preference now contributes to overeating and health issues in an era of abundance. Similarly, extreme moralized content online can capture our attention and provoke reactions that are out of proportion to the situation, due to the unnatural scale and distance of online interactions.

What role does empathy play in online interactions, and how is it different from face-to-face interactions?

Our paper discusses compassion, which is closely related to empathy. Compassion is adaptive because it encourages action; groups with compassionate members are more likely to care for each other and vulnerable offspring, enhancing survival and gene propagation. However, constant exposure to online suffering can lead to compassion fatigue. The sheer volume of distressing content can cause psychological numbness, making individuals feel overwhelmed and less likely to engage with suffering in a meaningful way.

What were some of the most surprising insights about how digital environments impact moral judgments and behaviors?

The most surprising insights were how online environments not only render traditional processes ineffective but can also reverse their intended effects. For instance, instead of promoting social engagement and moral correction, online interactions can lead to disengagement and sympathy for transgressors rather than victims.

Based on your findings, what practical steps can individuals take to mitigate negative moral behaviors online? What are the next steps in your research agenda?

It’s important to remember that evolution is not deterministic; we have choices about how we engage with online content. The algorithms of social media often prioritize negative, morally outrageous content, making it harder to focus on more balanced perspectives. Individuals should recognize that online representations are not reflective of broader societal norms. In our latest paper, “Inside the Funhouse Mirror Factory: How Social Media Distorts Perceptions of Norms,” we discuss how moderate opinions are often invisible online. Research shows that a small fraction of users generates most political content, leading to an overrepresentation of extreme views (Pew, 2019; Barberá & Rivero, 2015; Bail, 2022). In reality, extreme partisanship is rare, with most people holding moderate views or avoiding political discussions (Converse, 1964; Krupnikov & Ryan, 2022). My future research will focus on how moderate opinions are systematically marginalized online.

Sign up for the Daily Dose Newsletter and get the morning’s best science news from around the web delivered straight to your inbox? It’s easy like Sunday morning.