Computer Science > Computers and Society
[Submitted on 4 Sep 2026]
Title:Controversy and Group Certainty Jointly Shape Everyday Moral Judgments
View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:Everyday moral life rarely resembles a trolley problem. It involves disputes about families, relationships, work, money, and care, situations in which people often encounter the judgments of others. We examined how judgments about nuanced interpersonal dilemmas respond to social information that conveys collective opinion without revealing the arguments behind it. Specifically, we studied two signals: controversy, the extent to which community judgments are divided between two opposing verdicts; and group certainty, the confidence expressed by each side. We derived these signals from 54,827 judgments on 135 dilemmas posted to Reddit's r/AmItheAsshole and presented them separately or together in a preregistered randomized experiment (N = 2,159). Relative to the control condition, all three treatments increased both weakening, a changed verdict or reduced confidence, and strengthening, increased confidence without a verdict change. Thus, aggregated social information can reshape moral judgments even without arguments. Controversy alone tripled the weakening rate, from 5.3% to 15.9%. Shown alone, certainty on either side was associated with movement toward that side. Shown alongside controversy, only like-minded certainty remained clearly associated with less weakening. This asymmetry of influence is double-edged: the confidence of like-minded others may help minorities resist majority pressure, but it may also insulate mistaken judgments from correction.
References & Citations
Loading...
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Facts Only
* Research submitted on 4 September 2026.
* Study examines moral judgments regarding nuanced interpersonal dilemmas.
* Data derived from 54,827 judgments on 135 dilemmas from Reddit's r/AmItheAsshole.
* A randomized experiment included 2,159 participants.
* Two specific social signals were tested: controversy and group certainty.
* Controversy is defined as the division of community judgments between two opposing verdicts.
* Group certainty is defined as the confidence expressed by each side.
* Control conditions were compared against three treatments.
* Weakening is defined as a changed verdict or reduced confidence.
* Strengthening is defined as increased confidence without a verdict change.
* Controversy alone increased the weakening rate from 5.3% to 15.9%.
Executive Summary
Social information, specifically the level of community controversy and the certainty of opposing groups, significantly influences individual moral judgments on interpersonal dilemmas. Even in the absence of explicit arguments, knowing that a community is divided or that a specific side is confident can either weaken a person's original conviction or strengthen it.
The influence of group certainty is asymmetrical. When presented alone, certainty on either side tends to pull individuals toward that verdict. However, when combined with evidence of controversy, only the certainty of like-minded individuals effectively prevents a person's judgment from weakening. This suggests that while confidence among peers can help minorities resist majority pressure, it may simultaneously shield incorrect judgments from necessary correction.
Full Take
This study employs a robust methodology, utilizing a massive primary dataset from a naturalistic environment (Reddit) paired with a preregistered randomized experiment (N = 2,159). The sample size is sufficient for the observed effects, though a peer reviewer would likely question the generalizability of r/AmItheAsshole users to the general population, as Reddit users may possess specific demographic or psychological biases regarding moral deliberation.
The data demonstrates that social signals function as cognitive shortcuts. The claim that controversy alone triples the weakening rate is well-supported by the provided percentages. However, the conclusion that this "insulates mistaken judgments" is an interpretive leap; the data shows a resistance to change, but the "mistake" is a normative judgment not measured by the experimental design.
In a real-world context, these findings imply that the architecture of social media—which often highlights "controversy" or "top" (certain) comments—may be inadvertently reshaping moral landscapes without a single argument being exchanged. If confidence overrides evidence, the digital environment may be optimizing for certainty over accuracy.
To strengthen these claims, a follow-up study should introduce actual arguments alongside these signals to see if substantive reasoning can override the "certainty" effect.
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the effect of group certainty change when the "certain" group is identified as an out-group versus an in-group?
2. Does the presence of a single high-confidence dissenter create more "weakening" than a large group of low-confidence dissenters?