Recent research published in Psychology of popular media provides evidence that criticizing and withdrawing support for beloved celebrities who threaten a person’s social identity can provide immediate emotional relief. This finding suggests that engaging in harmful online behavior serves as a short-term coping mechanism for fans who experience a conflict between their national identity and their attachment to a celebrity.
The authors of this study wanted to understand the psychological motivations behind cancel culture. Cancel culture involves withdrawing support for celebrities or posting harsh criticism of them online. This behavior contributes to a hostile digital environment.
Many people develop strong, one-sided emotional attachments to media celebrities. These are known as quasi-social relationships. These unilateral attachments tend to increase psychological well-being and provide media consumers with a sense of belonging.
When a beloved celebrity acts in a way that violates a fan’s moral standards, it can cause emotional distress similar to a breakup in a real-life relationship. To avoid this pain, devoted fans often try to justify a celebrity’s bad behavior.
The researchers wanted to investigate what happens when a celebrity’s transgressions directly attack fans’ own group identity and can no longer be ignored. Specifically, we aimed to find out whether participating in cancel culture helps people manage the psychological tension between their love for celebrities and loyalty to their homeland. We also wanted to see if writing inflammatory comments could provide temporary emotional rewards.
“We live in an era where cancel culture is on the rise. People post harsh comments online and turn on celebrities they once admired. Political statements by celebrities (both left and right) are one of the reasons for public backlash against them. We wanted to better understand the psychology behind this phenomenon: What causes it and why is it so rewarding?”
The authors conducted an online experiment focusing on Israel’s war against Hamas in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attacks. Researchers noted that these attacks represented a national mass trauma. This situation led to a heightened sense of insecurity among Israelis, a strong sense of national solidarity, and a highly sensitive issue of national identity.
The sample consisted of 166 Israeli Jewish adults with no religious affiliation. Their ages ranged from 18 to 42, with an average age of about 30. The scientists chose this particular demographic because younger, secular media consumers are generally more familiar with mainstream celebrity culture than Israel’s religious sects. Participants received monetary compensation of approximately $4 for their time.
First, participants completed a measure of identification with Israel. They used a visual scale featuring a pair of overlapping circles to indicate how closely their identity merged with a national group.
Participants then selected their favorite media personality from a predefined list of 10 popular celebrities. The researchers specifically selected celebrities who had not yet spoken publicly about the war to avoid pre-existing bias. Next, participants answered questions regarding the strength of their existing one-sided relationship with the chosen celebrity.
The researchers then randomly assigned participants to one of three experimental groups. 40% of participants were asked to read a fabricated news article and write a comment or post on social media in response. Another 40% read the same article but didn’t have a chance to write a response. The remaining 20 percent served as a control group and did not read any articles.
This fabricated news article was designed to look like a post from a popular Israeli entertainment magazine. The participants chose their favorite celebrity to criticize Israel. The fake quote expressed sympathy for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and said Israeli soldiers should be prosecuted for war crimes, while completely ignoring Israel’s suffering.
After the reading and comment section, all participants answered questions regarding their emotional state. They reported levels of positive emotions, such as pride, and negative emotions, such as hostility and fear.
They also reported an intention to stop consuming celebrity content. This includes things like unfollowing a star, getting rid of their products, or telling others to boycott them. Finally, they rated their desire to post hurtful or mocking comments about public figures.
The scientists then evaluated the text of the comments written by the first group. They counted specific features of incendiary discourse, such as name-calling and shaming. This created a flame score ranging from 0 to 9 for each post.
Scientists found that reading anti-Israel statements caused participants to experience more negative emotions, such as hostility and irritation. Exposure also reduced positive emotions, such as feelings of pride.
Not surprisingly, reading the article in question increased participants’ intention to stop watching or listening to the celebrity’s work. It also increased their desire to post negative comments.
These reactions relied heavily on two opposing psychological forces. People with very strong sympathies for Israel showed higher intentions to cancel the celebrity.
On the other hand, a strong prior attachment to the celebrity acted as a buffer. Participants with the strongest one-sided relationships with celebrities tended to resist cancellation, even if their fans had a strong Israeli identity.
The most notable findings emerged from groups allowed to write comments on articles. By writing comments, participants were able to return their positive emotions to baseline levels seen in the control group.
By commenting, feelings of hostility and irritation were slightly reduced. Although these negative emotions did not drop to baseline, the act of posting did provide a significant reduction.
The researchers noted that comments that included more inflammatory language or hostility predicted greater recovery of positive emotions. This suggests that lashing out at the offending celebrity provided an immediate means of legitimizing feelings. The act of venting seemed to help participants process their feelings of betrayal.
Interestingly, the researchers also measured the participants’ self-esteem before the experiment began. They found that people with low self-esteem were actually less likely to engage in intense celebrity bashing. This suggests that publicly attacking celebrities online may require a certain amount of confidence.
“This dynamic plays out across many political and social contexts in the United States and around the world,” Tukaczynski told SciPost. “In our study, we examined this issue in the context of Israel’s war in Gaza. We found that Israeli Jewish participants felt especially hurt when their favorite celebrity spoke out explicitly against Israel, but that bashing that celebrity online seemed to make them feel better in the moment.”
While these findings provide evidence that celebrity bashing has short-term psychological rewards, the authors caution against interpreting cancel culture as a healthy coping mechanism. Aggressive behavior online contributes to a toxic Internet environment.
Also, investing time and energy into hating celebrities is more likely to lead to poorer mental health in the long run. The emotional satisfaction you get from posting inflammatory comments is temporary and lacks the deep psychological benefits of positive social connections.
“It’s important to note that this is an experiment that simulates a hypothetical scenario, rather than measuring reactions to actual celebrity statements,” Tukaczynski explained. “Furthermore, in this study, participants did not actually post comments on social media, but were asked to write the comments they would post under such hypothetical circumstances. Therefore, their behavior in real life may have been different.”
“It is also important to note that our findings only capture short-term effects. While posting incendiary comments online about celebrities appears to provide immediate emotional gratification, over time, such a toxic environment may ultimately have a negative impact on well-being. Although our study does not capture these effects, it helps explain why people are motivated to engage in this behavior by immediate emotional rewards.”
Future research should investigate how these dynamics play out over time. Scientists could also investigate whether people with different emotion regulation skills are more or less likely to participate in online violence.
Finally, the authors suggest replicating this study in other cultures. Different societies may have their own social norms regarding how people directly express their anger and the extent to which they idolize celebrities.
The study, “I Love You, But You Need to Cancel: Psychological Determinants and Consequences of Participation in Cancel Culture,” was authored by Rebecca Tukaczynski Forster and Daniel H. Spitz.
