Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Opinion

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.


When conservatives express outrage, liberals dismiss them as bigots and racists. When liberals protest, conservatives roll their eyes at the alleged virtue signaling. We celebrate when our adversaries get upset because their anger means our side is winning. As researchers studying morality and political behavior, this trend is deeply concerning to us—not because people are too emotional about politics but because too many dismiss their neighbor’s emotions instead of seeing the genuine moral intuitions they reflect.

Outrage is a moral alarm—a signal that something is unfair, unjust, or harmful. Deeply tied to morality, outrage guides us to protect the vulnerable from harm. We don’t just process injustice intellectually; we feel it.

Nor is moral outrage just for show: new science shows that outrage is less about posturing than genuine perceptions of harm. People express this anger because they perceive a threat to themselves or others. Outrage is a social emotion that spreads through groups to help us collectively restrain or punish those who threaten the social order. For example, everyone in your HOA gets upset when one neighbor is too lazy to mow their lawn, and ticks spread.

Historically, a whole community might share the same fears of obvious threats like murderers, thieves, or the spread of famine or plague. But in today’s conditions of relative safety, questions of harm and moral culpability are more ambiguous. Yet we feel just as outraged about the harms we see today as our forebearers might have, even when our neighbors might not see harm in the same place that we do.

Take the debate over book bans. When conservatives push to remove books from school libraries, they see it as protecting children from harm—exposure to ideas they believe are dangerous. When liberals fight book bans, they likewise see it as protecting children from harm—censorship that restricts access to important ideas. Both sides are morally motivated and trying to stand up for the vulnerable. They just disagree about who the real victims are.

If outrage is about harm, why do we treat it like a joke? We dismiss the other party’s outrage because we see them as an outgroup—people who are outsiders, not like us, and less and less like fellow citizens. And as contemporary American politics becomes increasingly bifurcated into separate discourse communities—with wholly different media diets, civic institutions, and values—it becomes difficult to even understand why people on the other side feel the way they do. It’s tempting to conclude that their concerns don’t matter. After all, they’re the enemy. Who cares what they want?

But dismissing the other side’s outrage is a dangerous mistake. There’s always a kernel of truth in the other side’s perceptions of harm, even if we disagree over which harm takes precedence. For example, liberal outrage highlights the importance of bodily autonomy for issues like access to abortion, while conservative outrage over bodily autonomy touches issues like vaccine mandates. Both reactions are valid and point towards a moral commitment shared by all sides of the political spectrum. Neither position should be dismissed on the basis of which party sounded the alarm.

So what do we do? First, take outrage seriously. Instead of rolling your eyes at the other side’s anger, ask yourself: What harm do they see? Instead of assuming they’re just looking for attention or trying to score political points, try to understand what they think is at stake.

Second, don’t get outraged about outrage. Meta-outrage—being mad that the other side is mad—just escalates division. If someone is outraged about something you find trivial, don’t assume they’re irrational. Ask questions to see the harm they see.

Finally, focus on conversations, not battles. Studies show that when people feel heard and respected, they’re more willing to listen in return. Ask “Why does this issue matter so much to you?” That question can shift a conversation from combative to constructive.

Outrage isn’t the problem; it’s an important part of human nature that helps us protect the vulnerable and aim at a more just society. Dismissing it, however, is a problem. The more we treat the other side as outgroup members whose anger is a joke to be memed, the more we’ll close our eyes to the areas where we agree. These areas are more substantial than we think.

Polling from the Independent Center shows that voters of all stripes want to see politicians working across the aisle. To do that, we’ll have to take each other’s views, including outrage, more seriously.

Kurt Gray is author of the recent book Outraged: Why We Fight about Morality and Politics. He’s a professor in Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding.

Lura Forcum is president of the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization of political independents. She is a consumer psychologist and a former professor of marketing.

Read More

Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

The SVL (Stories, Values, Listen) framework—which aims to bridge political divides with simple, memorable steps for productive cross-partisan conversations—is an easy-to-use tool for making an impact at scale.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Make Talking Politics Easier and More Scalable: Be SVL (Stories, Values, Listen)

How can one have a productive conversation across the political spectrum?

We offer simple, memorable guidance: Be SVL (pronounced like “civil”). SVL stands for sharing Stories, relating to a conversation partner’s Values, and closely Listening.

Keep ReadingShow less
St. Patrick’s Cathedral’s Mural: Art, Immigration, and the American Spirit

People attend a mass and ceremony for a new mural dedicated to New York City’s immigrant communities and honoring the city’s first responders at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 21, 2025 in New York City.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

St. Patrick’s Cathedral’s Mural: Art, Immigration, and the American Spirit

In a bold fusion of sacred tradition and contemporary relevance, artist Adam Cvijanovic has unveiled a sweeping new mural at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City—one that reimagines the historic narthex as a vibrant ode to peace, migration, and spiritual continuity.

In an age of polarization and performative politics, it’s rare to find a work of art that speaks with both spiritual clarity and civic urgency. Yet that’s exactly what “What’s So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding” accomplishes. The piece is more than a visual upgrade to a “dreary” entranceway—it’s a theological and cultural intervention, one that invites every visitor to confront the moral stakes of our immigration discourse.

Keep ReadingShow less