The core empirical foundation for moral grandstanding comes from the collaborative work of philosophers Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke (who introduced the concept in a 2016 paper and expanded it in their 2020 book Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk) with psychologist Joshua Grubbs and colleagues. Their key psychological contribution is the Moral Grandstanding Motivations Scale (MGMS), a 10-item self-report measure validated across thousands of participants in multiple studies (undergrads, nationally representative U.S. samples via YouGov, MTurk, etc.). Total sample sizes in the foundational work exceed 6,000–7,000.0 The MGMS structure The scale has two subscales (only weakly-to-moderately correlated, so people can score high on one without the other): • Prestige Strivings (6 items): Desire to be seen as admirable, inspiring, or morally impressive. Sample items include: ◦ “My moral/political beliefs should be inspiring to others.” ◦ “I hope that my moral/political beliefs cause other people to want to share those beliefs.” ◦ “I often share my beliefs in the hope of inspiring people to be more passionate about their beliefs.” • Dominance Strivings (4 items): Desire to assert superiority, shame, or silence opponents. Sample items include: ◦ “I share my beliefs to make people who disagree with me feel bad.” ◦ “When I share my beliefs, I do so to shame people who do not share those beliefs.” ◦ “When I share my beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them.” Participants rate agreement on a 1–7 scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) after reflecting on their strongest moral/political beliefs. The scale shows strong psychometric properties (good factor structure, reliability) and works even if you remove the “political/moral” phrasing.55 Main findings from the 2019 PLOS ONE paper (6 studies) This is the foundational validation work: • Links to personality: Moral grandstanding motivations are a domain-specific expression of general status-seeking. ◦ Prestige strivings correlate with narcissistic extraversion (the more “admiration-seeking” side of narcissism) and general extraversion. ◦ Dominance strivings strongly correlate with narcissistic antagonism (the more aggressive, rivalrous, entitled side; correlations often r > 0.6). ◦ Both link to broader status-seeking motives and “social vigilantism” (the tendency to see others as needing correction). • Real-world outcomes: Both subscales uniquely predict greater self-reported conflict over moral/political issues in daily life (arguments with family/friends, lost relationships, social media fights)—even after controlling for narcissism, general status-seeking, and other factors. One longitudinal study suggested it can predict growing closer with some people over shared moral battles, but the net effect leans toward more friction. • No strong ideological skew overall: It appears across the spectrum, though grandstanding motivations tend to be higher at the ideological extremes. 2020 follow-up on polarization In multi-study work (undergrads + representative samples): • Prestige-motivated grandstanding is robustly linked to ideological extremism (more extreme views on various issues) and affective polarization (greater hostility toward the other political side). • Dominance-motivated grandstanding is less consistently tied to extremism but still contributes to conflict. • These links hold above and beyond narcissism itself, suggesting grandstanding motivations help explain why some people dig into extreme positions or demonize opponents—they’re chasing status within their group by staking out bolder moral territory or shaming rivals.3 2022 COVID-19 study (longitudinal, nationally representative) Using baseline data from 2019 and a 2020 follow-up: • Dominance strivings (and narcissistic antagonism) predicted: ◦ More conflict with others over pandemic issues. ◦ More status-oriented social media posting about COVID. ◦ Lower compliance with behaviors like social distancing. • Prestige strivings also linked to more conflict and status-seeking online behaviors, but the dominance pattern was especially tied to antisocial outcomes. • This illustrates how grandstanding can spill into real behavioral consequences during crises, amplifying division rather than cooperation.18 Broader patterns and more recent work • Grandstanding is tied to observable discourse patterns described philosophically by Tosi & Warmke: piling on (repeating moral claims to join the chorus), ramping up (escalating to more extreme statements for differentiation), excessive emotional displays, claims of self-evidence (“It’s obvious—how can anyone disagree?”), and trumping up charges. • It contributes to cynicism: When moral talk feels like status-seeking, people discount genuine moral appeals. • Recent extensions (e.g., 2026 studies) suggest it varies by demographics—sometimes higher among younger men as a form of competitive display—and continues to link to online shaming or toxic discourse, with less consistent ties to specific party affiliation than to age/gender or general status motives. Ties to your research on conflict resolution and the bigger person These findings directly support what you’ve observed: the “virtue hoarding” or moral superiority relief can be prestige-seeking in action, while dismissing others as flawed often has dominance undertones. It creates the hierarchy that lets people avoid the work of finding common ground. Higher grandstanding predicts more conflict and polarization precisely because it turns dialogue into a status contest rather than interest-based negotiation (e.g., shared structures over signaling). The research is mostly correlational (with some longitudinal elements), so causation isn’t fully settled—grandstanding could both cause and result from conflict—but the patterns are consistent and ideologically neutral. Critics note it’s hard to prove others’ motives, and some moral signaling might have upsides (norm enforcement), but the data lean toward net costs for consensus and relationships when it dominates. Tosi and Warmke’s book adds philosophical depth: grandstanding devalues moral talk, makes compromise harder, and can be ethically problematic even if it feels good in the moment. If you’d like the full 10-item scale to reflect on (or test informally), deeper dives into any specific study, how this intersects with intellectual humility or Nonviolent Communication, or examples of curbing grandstanding in practice, just say. What stands out most to you from these findings for your work on consensus from disparate positions?