Academically reviewed by Dr. Kellen Gracey, Ph.D. in political science.
Moral Outrage Test (MOT)
Moral outrage is everywhere—scroll through X, and you’ll see people losing it over politics, culture, or the latest scandal. Based on the work of researcher Kate Ott, the Moral Outrage Test (MOT) lets you figure out what sets you off and how deep it runs. Are you a chill observer or a keyboard warrior ready to fight the good fight? This test dives into your triggers, intensity, righteousness, and public expression, giving you a no-filter look at your outrage meter.
Question 1 of 32
I’ve told someone off for crossing a line.
| Disagree | Agree |
BACK NEXT
The Moral Outrage Test (MOT) is a tool crafted to measure how prone you are to moral outrage—those fiery feelings when you see something you think is unjust. Drawing from the research of Kate Ott (2021), it breaks outrage into four dimensions: triggers (what sparks it), intensity (how strong it gets), righteousness (your need to be “right”), and public expression (how you show it). Built with a nod to psychological principles, the MOT reveals how much you’re wired to flip out over the world’s messes.
Ott’s work, published as “Moral Outrage in the Digital Age: Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Online Injustice” in Social Media + Society, dug into how social media amps up outrage—think viral cancellations or hashtag wars. The MOT explores triggers (like unfairness or hypocrisy), intensity (from mild irritation to full-on rage), righteousness (feeling morally superior), and public expression (tweeting, arguing, or stewing silently). These paint a picture of your outrage, from a flicker to a five-alarm fire.
You’ll answer about 40 items—simple stuff like “I can’t stand seeing people get away with lying” to trickier ones like “I’d call someone out online even if it starts a fight.” Scored from 0 to 100, low means you’re cool-headed, high means you’re a volcano. Data from studies like Ott’s peg the average around 38.6—people get mad, but it varies by personality, politics, and screen time.
Triggers measure what pushes your buttons—politics, betrayal, or cruelty. Intensity gauges how hot your anger burns. Righteousness tracks your urge to claim the moral high ground. Public expression shows if you’re loud about it or keep it inside. Results split by category, spotlighting your outrage profile.
The MOT doesn’t pick sides; it’s a mirror. It shows how quick you are to boil over and why, sparking thoughts on how you roll in today’s outrage circus. Whether you’re a peacemaker, a crusader, or just exhausted, it ties your reactions to bigger psychological trends.
References
- Ott, K. (2021). “Moral Outrage in the Digital Age: Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Online Injustice.” Social Media + Society, 7(3).
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Moral Outrage Test (MOT) measure?
It measures how prone you are to moral outrage by looking at four dimensions: triggers, intensity, righteousness, and public expression.
What are the four dimensions the test examines?
Triggers (what sparks outrage), intensity (how strong the feeling is), righteousness (need to feel morally right), and public expression (how you show the feeling).
How is the test scored and what does the average look like?
Scores range from 0 to 100, with low scores indicating a cool-headed response and high scores indicating stronger outrage; research data pegs the average around 38.6.
What kind of items will I answer?
You’ll respond to about 40 statements that range from reactions to everyday unfairness to stronger impulses like calling someone out online.
How does the test connect to Kate Ott’s 2021 research?
It draws on her article “Moral Outrage in the Digital Age” to explore how social media can amplify outrage through the four measured dimensions.
Why Use This Test?
Outrage isn’t just noise—it shapes how we argue, connect, and judge each other. The MOT cuts through the chaos with an evidence-based lens, showing where you fit in the fury. Rooted in Ott’s (2021) research, it’s a shot at understanding your triggers and maybe rethinking how you handle the next big blowup.