Affective and cognitive underpinnings of moral condemnation when news of transgressions goes viral

When news of a transgression goes viral, people hear about it repeatedly from different news sources and individuals. How does this repeated exposure affect moral judgments of the transgression? We test a new theoretical model proposing that moral condemnation is influenced by competing affective and cognitive processes. Repeated exposure to the same information about a transgression dampens people’s emotional responses, which can reduce moral condemnation (an affective-desensitization process). However, repeated exposure from multiple sources also signals that the transgression is receiving widespread negative attention, which can increase moral condemnation (a cognitive infamy-inference process). These processes’ net effect will depend on how strongly repetition dampens affect vs. signals infamy. Five preregistered experiments (N = 3,939) test our model. Participants rated corporate transgressions to which they had or had not been repeatedly exposed from three sources (news outlets or individuals). Experiments 1 and 2 measured affective reactions, infamy inferences, and moral judgments, finding mediational support for our model. In Experiment 2, and two supplemental experiments, repetition reduced moral condemnation, suggesting that affective desensitization was the dominant process. Experiment 3 was designed to strengthen the infamy process by highlighting over a million negative reactions to each repeatedly seen transgression; consistent with our model, infamy no longer reduced moral condemnation but continued to dull affective reactions, suggesting that affective desensitization and infamy-inference processes offset one another. By documenting these countervailing processes, our research deepens understanding of when, why, and how viral transgressions may impact public opinion and moral outrage.