The psychology of cancel culture: Celebrity bashing acts as a temporary coping mechanism

A recent study published in Psychology of Popular Media provides evidence that criticizing and withdrawing support from a beloved celebrity who threatens a person’s social identity can offer immediate emotional relief. The findings suggest that engaging in toxic online behavior acts as a short-term coping mechanism for fans experiencing a clash between their national identity and their attachment to a famous figure.

The authors of the study wanted to understand the psychological motivations behind cancel culture. Cancel culture involves withdrawing support for a public figure and often posting harsh criticisms about them online. This behavior contributes to a hostile digital environment.

Many people form strong, one-sided emotional attachments to media personalities. These are known as parasocial relationships. These one-sided attachments tend to boost psychological well-being and provide a sense of belonging for the media consumer.

When a beloved celebrity acts in a way that violates a fan’s moral standards, it can cause emotional distress similar to a real life interpersonal breakup. To avoid this pain, devoted fans often try to rationalize a celebrity’s bad behavior.

The researchers wanted to explore what happens when a celebrity’s transgression directly attacks the fan’s own group identity, making it impossible to ignore. Specifically, they aimed to find out if participating in cancel culture helps people manage the psychological tension between loving a celebrity and being loyal to their country. They also wanted to see if writing inflammatory comments provides a temporary emotional reward.

Free daily newsletter

“We live in a time where cancel culture is on the rise. People post harsh online comments and turn against celebrities they once admired. Celebrities’ political speech (either on the left or the right) is one of the reasons for the public backlash against celebrities. We wanted to better understand the psychology behind this phenomenon: what drives it and why it can feel rewarding?” explained Rebecca “Riva” Tukachinsky Forster, an associate professor at Chapman University.

The authors conducted an online experiment focusing on the Israeli war against Hamas in the wake of the October 7 terror attacks. The researchers noted that these attacks represented a massive national trauma. This context created a heightened state of anxiety and a strong sense of national solidarity among the Israeli public, making the issue of national identity highly sensitive.

The sample consisted of 166 nonreligious Israeli Jewish adults. Their ages ranged from 18 to 42, with an average age of about 30. The scientists chose this specific demographic because younger, secular media consumers are generally more familiar with mainstream celebrity culture than more religious subgroups in Israel. Participants received a financial compensation of about four dollars for their time.

First, the participants completed a measure of their identification with Israel. They used a visual scale featuring pairs of overlapping circles to indicate how closely their own identity merged with their national group.

Next, the participants selected their favorite media personality from a predefined list of ten popular celebrities. The researchers had specifically chosen celebrities who had not yet made any public statements about the war to avoid any existing biases. The participants then answered questions about the strength of their existing one-sided relationship with that chosen celebrity.

The researchers then randomly assigned the participants to one of three experimental groups. Forty percent of the participants read a fabricated news article and were asked to write a comment or a social media post in response. Another forty percent read the same article but received no opportunity to write a response. The remaining twenty percent served as a control group and did not read any article at all.

The fabricated news article was designed to look like a post from a popular Israeli entertainment magazine. It featured the participant’s chosen favorite celebrity condemning Israel. The fake quote expressed sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and stated that Israeli soldiers should be prosecuted for war crimes, while completely ignoring Israeli hardships.

After the reading and commenting portion, all participants answered questions about their emotional states. They reported their levels of positive emotions, such as pride, and negative emotions, such as hostility and fear.

They also reported their intentions to stop consuming the celebrity’s content. This included actions like unfollowing the star, getting rid of merchandise, and telling others to boycott them. Finally, they rated their desire to post hurtful or mocking comments about the public figure.

The scientists then evaluated the text of the comments written by the first group. They counted specific characteristics of inflammatory discourse, such as name calling and shaming. This created a flaming score ranging from zero to nine for each post.

The scientists found that reading the anti-Israel statements caused participants to experience more negative emotions, such as hostility and irritation. The exposure also reduced their positive emotions, such as feelings of pride.

Naturally, reading the offending article increased the participants’ intentions to stop watching or listening to the celebrity’s work. It also increased their desire to post negative comments.

These reactions depended heavily on two conflicting psychological forces. People who identified very strongly with Israel showed a much higher intention to cancel the celebrity.

On the other hand, a strong prior attachment to the celebrity acted as a buffer. Participants who had the strongest one-sided relationships with the celebrity tended to resist canceling them, even if the fans had a strong Israeli identity.

The most notable findings emerged from the group that was allowed to write a comment in response to the article. Writing a comment helped participants restore their positive emotions back to the baseline levels seen in the control group.

Commenting also slightly reduced their feelings of hostility and irritation. These negative emotions did not drop all the way back to baseline, but the act of posting provided a measurable relief.

The researchers noted that comments containing more inflammatory language and hostility predicted a greater recovery of positive emotions. This suggests that lashing out at the offending celebrity provided a form of immediate emotional validation. The act of venting appeared to help participants process their feelings of betrayal.

Interestingly, the researchers also measured the self-esteem of the participants before the experiment began. They found that individuals with lower self-esteem were actually less likely to engage in intense celebrity bashing. This indicates that a certain level of confidence might be required to publicly attack a famous figure online.

“This dynamic plays out across many political and social contexts in the United States and around the world,” Tukachinsky told PsyPost. “In our study, we examined it in the context of the Israel’s war in Gaza. We found that Israeli Jewish participants felt particularly hurt when their favorite celebrity spoke out unequivocally against Israel, but bashing that celebrity online appeared to make them feel better in the moment.”

While these findings provide evidence that celebrity bashing offers short-term psychological rewards, the authors caution against interpreting cancel culture as a healthy coping mechanism. Engaging in aggressive online behavior contributes to a toxic internet environment.

It is also highly possible that investing time and energy into hating a celebrity leads to worse mental health outcomes in the long run. The emotional gratification of posting an inflammatory comment is fleeting and lacks the deeper psychological benefits of positive social connections.

“It is important to note that this is an experiment that simulates a hypothetical scenario, rather than measuring responses to actual celebrity statements,” Tukachinsky explained. “Moreover, in this study participants did not actually post their comments on social media but were asked to write a comment that they would have posted under such hypothetical circumstances. So, in real life, their behavior might have been different.”

“It is also important to note that our findings capture only short-term effects. While there appears to be an immediate emotional gratification from posting flaming comments about a celebrity online, it is possible that, over time, such toxic environment may ultimately have negative consequences for well-being. Our study does not capture these effects but it helps explain why people may be motivated to engage in this behavior due to immediate emotional rewards.”

Future research should explore how these dynamics play out over a longer period. Scientists could also investigate whether people with different emotion regulation skills are more or less likely to participate in online outrage.

Finally, the authors suggest replicating the study in other cultures. Different societies might have unique social norms regarding how directly people express anger and how much they idolize celebrities.

The study, “I Love You, but I’ve Got to Cancel You: Psychological Determinants and Consequences of Cancel Culture Participation,” was authored by Rebecca Tukachinsky Forster and Daniel H. Spitz.