The phenomenon of “cancel culture” has become a prominent feature of online discourse, where individuals or brands are publicly called out and boycotted for perceived transgressions. A recent study published in the journal Acta Psychologica explored the psychological underpinnings of why some people are more inclined to engage in canceling behaviors than others. The study reveals that how central political identity is to an individual’s self-concept — referred to as “political identity centrality” — increases the likelihood of participating in cancel culture.
Cancelling refers to the phenomenon where individuals or groups use social media to call out and apply social sanctions against a person or brand due to perceived transgressions. This often involves public criticism that can lead to boycotts, loss of reputation, or other forms of public shaming. It’s a modern form of social ostracism that harnesses the connectivity and amplifying power of social networks, allowing collective disapproval to be broadcasted widely and rapidly.
Despite its prevalence and significant impact on public discourse, the motivations and underlying factors that lead individuals to engage in cancelling behaviors are not well understood. The authors of the new study were particularly interested in exploring how political identity might influence their likelihood to participate in cancel culture. This focus stems from the observation that political beliefs often shape moral judgments and social actions, especially in highly polarized environments.
The study involved 459 participants who were recruited to complete an online survey via Prolific Academic. To measure political identity centrality, participants answered questions designed to reflect how strongly their political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) influenced their personal identity and daily interactions (e.g. “In general, being a Republican/Democrat is an important part of my self-image”). The survey also included measures of moral exporting, social vigilantism, virtue signaling, and self-efficacy.
The researchers developed a specific measure to gauge cancelling proclivity. The measure was split into two components: reactions to a transgression and specific behaviors like calling-out and piling-on.
The first component, reactions to a transgression, was designed to measure the general response of participants to hypothetical scenarios where a celebrity made statements opposing their political beliefs. Participants were presented with descriptions of a celebrity who either opposed same-sex marriage or supported mandatory vaccinations, depending on the participant’s political leaning.
The reactions were recorded on a scale from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely” regarding participants’ willingness to see the celebrity face professional repercussions, such as losing acting roles because of their statements. This part of the measure aimed to capture the intensity and nature of the participants’ immediate reactions to scenarios that touch on their political and moral sensitivities.
The second component focused more directly on the behaviors associated with cancel culture: calling-out and piling-on. For calling-out, participants were asked to recall a time they publicly criticized someone and to rate how appropriate they believe it is to call out public figures for their misbehavior on a scale from “very inappropriate” to “very appropriate”.
Piling-on was measured by asking participants about their engagement with social media posts that highlight public figures’ misbehavior. This included how often they like, comment, or share such posts, as well as their likelihood to engage with posts from respected individuals in their network who call out others. These items were combined to form a composite score representing each participant’s propensity to engage in calling-out and piling-on behaviors.
The study researchers that individuals with a high centrality of political identity were more likely to exhibit canceling behaviors. This relationship was mediated by two specific psychological mechanisms: social vigilantism and virtue signaling.
Social vigilantism, which refers to the tendency to correct others based on one’s moral or ideological beliefs, significantly mediated the relationship between political identity centrality and behaviors like calling out and piling on. This indicates that individuals who see their political beliefs as central to their identity are more likely to feel a responsibility to “educate” or correct others who they perceive as morally or ideologically misguided.
Virtue signaling also played a critical role, particularly in how individuals reacted generally to transgressions. The researchers found that those who hold their political identity in high regard are likely to use public denouncements of transgressions as a way to signal their moral correctness and alignment with their in-group’s values. This suggests that part of the motivation behind canceling may be driven by a desire to be seen positively by like-minded peers.
Interestingly, the findings also revealed differences in how these mediators influenced different types of canceling behaviors. For instance, while social vigilantism was more associated with the active behaviors of calling out and joining in criticism, virtue signaling was more related to the broader reaction to transgressions, highlighting a distinction between engaging in cancel culture as a form of identity expression versus as a part of active social enforcement.
The researchers’ analysis further indicated that the direct effect of political identity centrality on specific canceling actions was not significant without the mediation of these psychological factors. This indicates that individuals are not directly spurred by political identity alone but are instead influenced by deeper motivational drivers that are activated by this identity centrality.
“Taken together, political identity centrality increases the likelihood that individuals will engage in cancelling behavior as they seek to signal their virtue or apply their values to ignorant others,” the researchers wrote.
But the study, like all research, includes some limitations to consider. The reliance on an online survey and a self-selected sample may introduce biases such as self-reporting and selection bias, where individuals who are more internet-savvy or have strong opinions on cancel culture might be overrepresented. The hypothetical scenarios used to measure canceling proclivity might not perfectly capture real-world responses or the intensity of emotions involved in actual canceling situations. Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design precludes the ability to infer causality or track changes over time.
Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how canceling behaviors evolve over time and the long-term effects on individuals and brands, while experimental designs could help establish causality and explore the effectiveness of different interventions to mitigate the negative impacts of cancel culture.
“Our findings lay groundwork for future research on cancel culture broadly, and cancelling behaviors in particular. Furthermore, our study highlights that such behavior may be less about the content of one’s beliefs and more about the significance of those beliefs to one’s identity,” the researchers concluded.
The study, “The association between political identity centrality and cancelling proclivity,” was authored by Rhiannon M. Mesler, Katharine Howie, Jennifer Chernishenko, Mingnan Nancy Shen, and Jessica Vredenburg
