Exploring the Harm of Virtue Signalling and Moral Grandstanding

7 Jun

Virtue signalling and moral grandstanding are increasingly prevalent in today’s socio-political landscape, often permeating corporate and individual behaviors alike. These practices involve showcasing one's moral values to gain social approval rather than enacting genuine change. While they can enhance one's social standing, they often come at significant social and psychological costs. This article explores the harmful effects of virtue signalling and moral grandstanding, illustrating these concepts with examples of corporate practices, and drawing on peer-reviewed research to support the arguments.

Definitions and Differences

Virtue Signalling: This involves expressing moral values or virtues primarily to showcase one's good character. It often lacks substantive action behind the expressions (Jordan et al., 2016).

Moral Grandstanding: A more specific form of virtue signalling, moral grandstanding involves making moral statements to impress others and gain social status (Tosi & Warmke, 2020).

Psychological and Social Harms

Erosion of Trust and Credibility: When individuals or corporations engage in virtue signalling without genuine commitment to the values they profess, it can erode trust. For instance, when brands make public statements supporting social causes but fail to implement supportive policies internally, consumers often perceive them as insincere. This insincerity can damage the brand’s credibility (Conway & Peetz, 2012).

Example: Pepsi's 2017 advertisement featuring Kendall Jenner was widely criticized for trivializing the Black Lives Matter movement, leading to public backlash and a loss of trust in the brand's commitment to social justice.

Increased Polarization: Virtue signalling can exacerbate social divisions by creating in-group and out-group dynamics. When individuals or entities publicly align with certain values to gain approval, it can lead to the alienation of those who hold different views. This polarization is often detrimental to constructive dialogue and social cohesion (Greenwood, 2017).

Example: Gillette's 2019 "The Best Men Can Be" campaign, which addressed toxic masculinity, received mixed reactions. While some praised the brand for tackling important issues, others felt alienated and accused the company of virtue signalling, leading to polarized consumer responses.

Superficial Engagement with Social Issues: Companies engaging in virtue signalling often adopt performative actions rather than substantive changes. This superficial engagement can divert attention from the underlying issues and impede real progress. When companies prioritize appearances over action, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problems they claim to address (Feinberg et al., 2019).

Example: Fast fashion brands frequently promote themselves as champions of sustainability while continuing to engage in environmentally harmful production practices. This discrepancy between their marketing and their actions undermines genuine efforts toward sustainability.

Psychological Well-being and Authenticity: Individuals who engage in virtue signalling may experience stress and anxiety related to maintaining a certain public image. The pressure to consistently demonstrate one's moral virtues can lead to inauthentic behavior and internal conflict. Over time, this can negatively impact psychological well-being (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Example: Employees in companies that encourage virtue signalling might feel compelled to publicly support initiatives they do not genuinely endorse, leading to a sense of inauthenticity and psychological distress.

Corporate Case Studies

Starbucks’ Racial Bias Training: In 2018, Starbucks temporarily closed over 8,000 stores for racial bias training after an incident of racial profiling in one of its stores. While this action was initially praised, critics argued that the training was more of a public relations move than a commitment to systemic change within the company. The incident highlighted the potential for such initiatives to be perceived as virtue signalling when not followed by deeper, systemic changes (Gündemir et al., 2020).

Volkswagen’s Environmental Scandal: Volkswagen marketed itself as an environmentally friendly company while simultaneously engaging in widespread emissions cheating. This stark contrast between the company’s public image and its actions exemplifies the harm caused by corporate virtue signalling. The scandal not only damaged Volkswagen’s reputation but also eroded public trust in corporate environmental commitments (Hamilton & Scruggs, 2018).

H&M’s Sustainability Campaigns: H&M has launched several campaigns promoting its commitment to sustainability, yet it continues to face criticism for its fast fashion business model, which is inherently unsustainable. Critics argue that H&M’s sustainability campaigns constitute virtue signalling, as they create an environmentally conscious image without addressing the fundamental issues of overproduction and waste (Bick et al., 2018).

Simply Put

Virtue signalling and moral grandstanding, while often well-intentioned, can have harmful effects on social dynamics, trust, and genuine progress. Companies engaging in these practices risk damaging their credibility and contributing to social polarization. For meaningful change, actions must go beyond performative displays of virtue and reflect genuine commitments to the values professed. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering a more authentic and effective engagement with social issues.

References

Bick, R., Halsey, E., & Ekenga, C. C. (2018). The global environmental injustice of fast fashion. Environmental Health, 17(1), 92.
Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When Does Feeling Moral Actually Make Things Worse? The Paradoxical Effects of Anticipating Feelings of Guilt. Psychological Science, 23(2), 120-126.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2019). The virtues of gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 1015-1032.
Greenwood, B. (2017). Polarization and Inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(4), 199-222.
Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., Usova, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2020). Multicultural meritocracy: The synergy of multiculturalism and meritocracy in organizational settings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 120-133.
Hamilton, J. T., & Scruggs, L. A. (2018). Air pollution and social inequities across the United States. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 28, 1.
Jordan, J., Hoffman, M., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature, 530(7591), 473-476.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Social Media Use in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
Tosi, J., & Warmke, B. (2020). Moral grandstanding as a threat to free expression. Social Philosophy and Policy, 37(2), 190-211.

JC Pass MSc

JC Pass is a writer for Simply Put Psych, where he regularly contributes articles on various topics in psychology. Holding an MSc, his writing often delves into psychological concepts in a clear and engaging manner for a broad audience. Some of his notable work includes discussions on foundational psychology studies, such as Milgram's obedience experiments, where he not only summarizes but critiques the ethical and methodological implications of these studies.

In addition to research-based content, JC Pass explores practical applications of psychology, such as how cold water immersion can be used to build mental resilience by leveraging the body's stress response. His work emphasizes the importance of emotional regulation and mindfulness in fostering psychological resilience.

His articles cater to both academic and general readers, blending research with insights that are applicable in daily life. You can explore more of his work on the Simply Put Psych website.

https://SimplyPutPsych.co.uk