In the first few studies, participants were shown the post and asked to indicate how offensive and how funny they found it on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). They then read the responses condemning the post, also inspired by real comments on the event, and were asked another set of questions. These included questions about intentionality, such as “how much do you think the poster intended to hurt people with what they said?”, and others relating to whether the participant believed the poster should be punished by the social media platform or by their friends and employers. Participants were also asked how sympathetic and outraged they were by the post.

The results showed that viral outrage was frequently perceived as disproportionate, leading to increased sympathy for the poster compared to the non-viral condition. But despite their sympathy, participants didn’t express any less condemnation for the poster when outrage was viral. That seemed to be because higher levels of outrage also meant participants felt condemnation was the norm, making them both feel more outrage themselves and more likely to express it.

In further studies, the team found the same pattern of results, regardless of how offensive the original post was, and whether the poster was a lay person or a high-status public figure. And interestingly, one study also showed that participants believed others were less sympathetic and more outraged than they were themselves — meaning concerns over so-called “outrage culture” may be overlooking how sympathetic we really are.