SignificanceHas an epidemic of “virtue signaling” left people too trigger-happy with respect to moralistic punishment? On the one hand, we find that placing reputational scrutiny on whether people punish does make people more punitive, and the punishment that it inspires is indeed sometimes unreflective. Yet, we also find that placing reputational scrutiny onhowpeople come to punish (and particularly whether they first consider opposing perspectives) does not further increase rates of unreflective punishment. Moreover, when engaging with opposing perspectives is observable, overall rates of engagement increase, reflecting that people accurately expect considering opposing perspectives to lookgood. In these ways, our results paint a nuanced picture that both affirms and challenges critiques of virtue signaling and “outrage culture”.