(1,518) = 16.28, < 0.001
Study 1 mediation model result. Partial support for the predicted sequential indirect effects of condition on collective action intention mediated by feelings of collective validation, collective anger and contempt, collective empowerment. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.01.
This first experimental study provides initial evidence that being exposed to an episode of cancel culture does elicit feelings of collective validation and these feelings are associated with a stronger sense of collective empowerment which in turn is associated with greater collective action intention. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a positive relationship between exposure to cancel culture and intentions to engage in collective action has been demonstrated using an experimental design. However, the correlation between Condition and Collective Action Intentions is small (−0.01), implying the possible presence of other pathways in the total model. Regardless, despite legitimate critiques of cancel culture and a recognition that, like cancel culture itself, these effects may be limited in time and scope, it does appear cancel culture in response to a blatant act of sexism can have a positive impact on women’s interest in taking actions to fight gender inequality.
While collective – and personal – empowerment has been linked to greater collective action in previous work ( Drury and Reicher, 1999 ; van Zomeren et al., 2008b ; Wright, 2010 ), this research provides preliminary support for the role of collective validation as a precursor for women’s sense of collective empowerment and, thus, intentions to participate in collective action. Therefore, future research on motivating factors for collective action may benefit from the inclusion of feelings of collective validation and consider sources of this validation (e.g., cancel culture). It is also possible that instances of allyship such as cancel culture elicit collective validation of a group’s existing power through communicating collective care and, thus, group value (i.e., “ we care about your wellbeing and experiences with harm because you matter ”; e.g., Smith, 1997 ; Weis et al., 2006 ; Bradbury-Jones et al., 2011 ). This is not to say that cancel culture should be used to motivate groups toward collective action, rather it serves as an interesting and important example of allyship from a superordinate group that may, through collective validation (i.e., recognition, support, and increased visibility) of a harmed group, foster the collective empowerment needed to motivate groups toward collective action.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Stürmer and Simon, 2009 ; Tausch et al., 2011 ; Shepherd and Evans, 2020 ), stronger feelings of anger and contempt were associated with stronger collective action intentions. However, this relationship seems to be separate from cancel culture and feelings of collective validation. One may argue that the collective validation that emerges from cancel culture may alleviate feelings of anger and contempt. However, the women in the current study were substantially angry and contemptuous ( x ̄ =4.43, SD = 0.71, on a 5-point scale). Hence, two other possible explanations for this finding are that (1) emotions constitute a pathway toward collective action that is separate from collective validation and that these emotions are more influenced by the nature of the harmful/unjust actions of the perpetrator group than by the subsequent responses to those actions and (2) there is a difference between affective social support and instrumental social support present in this research.
van Zomeren et al. (2008a) social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) proposes three distinct predictors of collective action: affective justice (emotional responses to perceived injustice – such as anger); politicized identity; and collective efficacy. Therefore, it is possible that collective anger and contempt are motivating collective action intention for reasons separate from feelings of collective validation.
In addition, according to van Zomeren et al. (2004) , emotional social support (support of the harmed group’s emotions and opinions) influenced collective action through collective anger, whereas instrumental social support (direct action by a superordinate group to correct the injustice) influenced collective action through collective efficacy (see also van Zomeren et al., 2008a affective vs. nonaffective injustice). Therefore, it is also possible that the cancel culture scenario presented in the current research elicited a sense of instrumental social support more so than emotional social support resulting in the lack of a relationship between feelings of collective validation and collective anger and contempt. For example, the campus community petitioning administration to expel the perpetrators and enact consequences for the Eta Nu fraternity may have been viewed by participants as instrumental collective validation (or social support) since these examples represent public actions.
Study 2 will extend the current findings with three important changes from Study 1. First, we will test the generality of the findings by focusing on a different intergroup relationship. Thus, Study 2, includes a community sample of East Asian Canadians and Americans and focuses on responses to an incident of Anti-Asian discrimination. Second, in order to better consider the impact of emotions as mediators, the scenario presenting the manipulation will include more messages that reflect affective responses ( van Zomeren et al., 2004 ). Third, to streamline the data collection, the 2-part measure of collective empowerment used in Study 1 will be replaced by a simpler, more direct measure ( Moya-Garófano et al., 2021 ).
Incidents of violence and anti-East Asian hate crimes are on the rise following the 2020 COVID-19 outbreaks ( Chen et al., 2020 ). In addition, the East Asian diaspora is beginning to speak openly about this xenophobia and racism. Prior to these recent events, racism toward East Asian Canadians and Americans has typically been marginalised and downplayed, at times even by East Asian communities (e.g., Tai, 2020 ; Shao and Lin, 2021 ). This may be in part due to the Model Minority Myth (MMM) that minimises and marginalizes East Asian communities and groups’ experiences with racism since they are viewed as passive, privileged, successful and even as “honorary whites” who do not complain or protest like other systemically marginalised groups ( Aguirre and Lio, 2008 ; Yoo et al., 2010 ; Lee, 2022 ). Thus, East Asian peoples may fear that drawing attention to themselves via collective action against anti-East Asian racism might result in backlash and more racist discrimination, rather than support or solidarity, from the dominant groups that endorse the MMM. Wei et al. (2010) found that Asian American women who endorsed direct confrontations of gender discrimination reported more negative outcomes including decreased life satisfaction. While the MMM has received considerable academic and public critique, it remains a common representation of East Asian communities in both the US and Canada. The resulting lack of public attention has also led to limited attention from social psychological and anti-racism research. However, anti-Asian racism has been rampant in North America for decades, and there is growing public discourse and activism ( Brockell, 2021 ; Government of Canada, 2021 ; Lee, 2022 ). Therefore, a focus on anti- East Asian discrimination and collective responses to it are both important and timely. Thus, we will use this context to explore the role of cancel culture, feelings of collective validation, emotions, and collective empowerment in motivating collective action.
Prior to beginning the study, the second author conducted a focus group with East Asian Canadian students. The rationale was to include members of East Asian communities early in the research process as we were developing the content of the manipulations and adapting the measures to this new intergroup context. It was important that the scenarios and measures be respectful of East Asian cultures, perspectives, experiences, and communities. The specific goal of the focus group was to gauge how East Asian students responded to an early draft of the scenarios used in the manipulation and to use their feedback to make alterations. In addition, it was important that the list of potential collective actions was culturally relevant (e.g., would members of East Asian communities be likely to attend a protest).
In the focus group, the students read both the control and cancel culture fictitious racism scenarios and the collective action intention measure and provided feedback on each. No changes were made to the fictitious scenarios as a result of the focus group feedback. We received positive feedback from participants about the realism, cultural sensitivity, and participant responses to both the control and cancel culture conditions. However, the collective action measure was modified to include some actions in which the group indicated members of East Asian communities would be more likely to engage (e.g., writing to government officials).
Data was collected via Prolific , an online survey research platform for social sciences. The survey was available to participants who were of East Asian descent and residing in either Canada or the United States. Participants were remunerated with $6 USD for approximately 30 min of time. Cases were removed if participants did not complete the core measures of the survey (33 cases) or spent less than 500 s (approximately 8 min; 12 cases). 3 Despite using Prolific demographic filters, some participants did not indicate being of East Asian descent and these cases were removed (17 cases). Due to a technological error, the randomly assigned condition for two participants was not recorded by Qualtrics and these cases were removed. The total sample following removal of problematic cases consisted of 237 self-identified East Asian Canadian and American participants. Demographic information is listed in Table 4 below.
Summary of participant demographics (Study 2).
Country of residence | Participants ( = 237) | |
---|---|---|
% | ||
Canada | 72 | 30.4 |
The USA | 165 | 69.6 |
East Asian Ethnic Group | % | |
Chinese | 145 | 61.2 |
Japanese | 19 | 8 |
Korean | 39 | 16.5 |
Mongolian | 0 | 0 |
Taiwanese | 16 | 6.8 |
Tibetan | 1 | 0.4 |
Vietnamese | 14 | 5.9 |
Prefer to specify or provide more detail | 13 | 5.5 |
Parent East Asian ethnic group | % | |
Chinese | 148 | 62.4 |
Japanese | 19 | 8 |
Korean | 37 | 15.6 |
Mongolian | 0 | 0 |
Taiwanese | 16 | 6.8 |
Tibetan | 1 | 0.4 |
Vietnamese | 11 | 4.6 |
Prefer to specify or provide more detail | 17 | 7.2 |
Grandparent East Asian ethnic group | % | |
Chinese | 150 | 63.3 |
Japanese | 21 | 8.9 |
Korean | 38 | 16 |
Mongolian | 0 | 0 |
Taiwanese | 16 | 6.8 |
Tibetan | 1 | 0.4 |
Vietnamese | 9 | 3.8 |
Prefer to specify or provide more detail | 14 | 5.9 |
Disability | % | |
An autism spectrum disorder | 7 | 3 |
A chronic health condition | 11 | 4.6 |
A communication impairment | 0 | 0 |
A developmental disability | 0 | 0 |
A learning disability | 4 | 1.7 |
A mental illness or health challenge | 23 | 9.7 |
A mobility or orthopedic impairment | 3 | 1.3 |
A sensory impairment | 2 | 0.8 |
A temporary impairment due to illness or injury | 3 | 1.3 |
Prefer to specify or provide more detail | 1 | 0.4 |
Prefer not to answer | 19 | 8 |
Not applicable | 184 | 77.6 |
Gender | % | |
Woman (cisgender and transgender) | 113 | 47.9 |
Agender | 2 | 0.8 |
Non-binary/gender fluid/gender non-conforming/gender queer | 2 | 0.8 |
Man (cisgender and transgender) | 112 | 47.5 |
Prefer not to answer | 6 | 2.6 |
Sexual orientation | % | |
Asexual | 10 | 4.2 |
Bisexual | 16 | 6.8 |
Gay | 3 | 1.3 |
Lesbian | 4 | 1.7 |
Pansexual | 1 | 0.4 |
Heterosexual/straight | 192 | 81 |
Queer | 2 | 0.8 |
Prefer to self-describe | 1 | 0.4 |
Prefer not to answer | 8 | 3.4 |
Age (years) | % | |
18–24 | 68 | 28.7 |
25–34 | 88 | 37.1 |
35–44 | 40 | 16.9 |
45–54 | 24 | 10.1 |
55–64 | 11 | 4.6 |
65–74 | 1 | 0.4 |
Prefer not to answer | 5 | 2.1 |
Education (highest level completed) | % | |
High school diploma | 16 | 6.8 |
Some college | 34 | 14.3 |
Undergraduate/Bachelor’s degree | 139 | 58.6 |
Graduate/Master’s degree | 36 | 15.2 |
Doctorate/Professional degree | 9 | 3.8 |
Prefer not to answer | 3 | 1.3 |
Income (yearly, pre-tax) | % | |
< $10,000 | 26 | 11 |
$10,000–$19,999 | 11 | 4.6 |
$20,000–$29,999 | 16 | 6.8 |
$30,000–$39,999 | 17 | 7.2 |
$40,000–$49,999 | 21 | 8.9 |
$50,000–$59,999 | 18 | 7.6 |
$60,000–$69,999 | 13 | 5.5 |
$70,000–$79,999 | 25 | 10.6 |
$80,000–$89,999 | 13 | 5.4 |
$90,000–$99,999 | 14 | 5.9 |
$100,000–$149,999 | 21 | 8.9 |
> $150,000 | 21 | 8.9 |
Prefer not to answer | 20 | 8.5 |
Employment status | % | |
Employed full time | 131 | 55.3 |
Employed part time | 34 | 14.3 |
Unemployed looking for work | 20 | 8.4 |
Unemployed not looking for work | 1 | 0.4 |
Retired | 2 | 0.8 |
Student | 40 | 16.9 |
Prefer not to answer | 9 | 3.8 |
Residence | % | |
Owned or being bought | 113 | 47.9 |
Rented for money | 67 | 28.4 |
Occupied without payment or money or rent | 2 | 0.8 |
Student housing provided by university | 4 | 1.7 |
Living with friends | 2 | 0.8 |
Living with family | 48 | 20.3 |
In this pre-registered experiment, 4 Participants were told that the researchers were interested in “understanding responses to contentious online topics and behaviours.” Those who signed up for the study were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In both conditions, participants read a fictitious scenario of a racist incident in the Vancouver community. In the cancel culture condition this was followed by a description of an episode of cancel culture against the perpetrator group. In the control condition, participants read only the scenario of a racist incident without any additional information. Following exposure to the given condition, participants responded to measures of the same variables in Study 1.
The cancel culture condition included a scenario describing a racist incident in the community followed by a description of a targeted campaign by others from the community to cancel the perpetrator. While the racist incident described in the scenario was fictitious, it was based on real experiences of East Asian and Pacific Islander Canadians and Americans throughout the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g., Kambhampaty and Sakaguchi, 2020 ; Baylon and Cecco, 2021 ). Descriptions of these real-world experiences were reviewed prior to writing the scenario. The episode of cancel culture included components naturally found in real-world cancel culture scenarios such as high visibility (“ the post had 2,200 likes and has been shared over 300 times by the Vancouver community and beyond ”); public denouncing of norm violation (“ This is deplorable, especially during a time when we should be working together ”); punishment of the perpetrators (e.g., calls for police investigations and expulsion from programs) and calls for justice (“ It’s time for racists in this community to face the consequences of their actions ”); and expressions of support of the harmed group (“ East-Asian people are right to expect better from their neighbors ”).
The control condition included the same racist incident but did not include the description of the cancel culture episode.
Participants responded to 24-items consistent with the definition of feelings of collective validation (e.g., “ The experiences of harm faced by East Asian people are recognized by the community ”). Responses were provided on a 5-point scale (1 Strongly disagree to 5 Strongly agree ). Higher scores indicate greater felt collective validation ( α = 0.91). See Appendix A . 5
Participants responded to a shorter (4-item rather than 8-item) version of the anger (anger, frustration) and contempt (contemptuous and disgusted) measure adapted from Mackie et al. (2000) . Responses were provided on a 5-point scale (1 Not at all to 5 Extremely ). Higher scores indicate greater anger and contempt ( α = 0.90).
Participants responded to a 10-item measure that asked “ As an East Asian person, if I were in the situation described in the article, I would feel ”: empowered, in control of the situation, humiliated, inferior, defenseless, full of energy, stimulated, independent, not in control of the situation, and weak ( Moya-Garófano et al., 2021 ). Because of a technical error in the Qualtrics file, five of the 10 items (full of energy, stimulated, independent, not in control of the situation, and weak) were randomly omitted for 80 participants. Thus, a shorter 5-item version of the measure was used to maintain the entire sample. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale (1 Not at all to 5 Extremely ), and the reliability for this 5-item version was good ( α = 0.82; full 10-item measure α = 0.89). Scores for items indicating helplessness/disempowerment were reversed so that higher overall scores indicate greater feelings of collective empowerment.
Participants respond to 10-items about their willingness to participate in various forms of activism against anti-East Asian racism (e.g., “ Write a letter/email to government officials in my area regarding policies that impact East Asian peoples and cultures ”) on a 5-point scale (1 Very unlikely to 5 Very likely ). This measure was adapted from Becker and Wright (2011) for use with East Asian participants but was also informed by the focus group feedback with East Asian Canadian students regarding racism in their communities and ways they would be (un)likely to respond. Higher scores indicate greater willingness/intention to participate in collective action ( α = 0.90).
The results show a significant positive direct effect of Condition on Feelings of Collective Validation, but also a significant direct effect of Condition on Collective Empowerment that was not predicted. As predicted, there was a significant direct effect of Feelings of Collective Validation on Collective Empowerment. However, there was also a significant direct effect of Feelings of Collective Validation on Collective Anger and Contempt. In addition, there was a significant negative direct effect of Condition on Collective Anger and Contempt (not mediated by Feelings of Collective Validation) that was not predicted.
Further, Collective Anger and Contempt had a significant positive effect on Collective Action Intention, but the effect of Collective Empowerment on Collective Action Intention found in Study 1 did not emerge here.
Finally, significant indirect effects were found for Condition on Collective Action Intention mediated by Collective Anger and Contempt ( β = −0.16, 95% CI (−0.32, −0.04)), and for Condition on Collective Action Intention mediated sequentially by Collective Validation and Collective Anger and Contempt, and [ β = 0.09, 95% CI (0.02, 0.20)]. See Tables 5 , ,6 6 and Figure 3 below for details.
Mean (SD) | Condition | Feelings of collective validation | Collective anger and contempt | Collective empowerment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feelings of collective validation | 3.39 (0.66) | 0.566** | |||
Collective anger and contempt | 4.26 (0.82) | −0.092 | 0.097 | ||
Collective empowerment | 2.33 (0.91) | 0.274** | 0.302** | −0.382** | |
Collective action intentions | 3.36 (0.89) | −0.025 | 0.056 | 0.439** | −0.186** |
*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level.
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level.
Feelings of collective validation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
95% CI | |||||
Condition | |||||
Feelings of collective validation | – | – | – | – | – |
Collective anger and contempt | – | – | – | – | – |
Collective empowerment | – | – | – | – | – |
Constant | 2.27 | 0.11 | <0.001 | 2.04 | 2.49 |
= 0.32 (1,235) = 110.76, < 0.01 | |||||
Collective anger and contempt | |||||
95% CI | |||||
Condition | |||||
Feelings of collective validation | |||||
Collective anger and contempt | – | – | – | – | – |
Collective empowerment | – | – | – | – | – |
Constant | 3.86 | 0.28 | <0.001 | 3.31 | 4.41 |
= 0.04 (2, 234) = 5.05, < 0.01 | |||||
Collective empowerment | |||||
95% CI | |||||
Condition | |||||
Feelings of collective validation | |||||
Collective anger and contempt | – | – | – | – | – |
Collective empowerment | – | – | – | – | – |
Constant | 0.90 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.31 | 1.48 |
= 0.11 (2, 234) = 13.96, < 0.001 | |||||
Collective action intent | |||||
95% CI | |||||
Condition | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.85 | −0.23 | 0.28 |
Feelings of collective validation | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.83 | −0.18 | 0.22 |
Collective anger and contempt | |||||
Collective empowerment | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.65 | −0.16 | 0.10 |
Constant | 1.37 | 0.41 | <0.001 | 0.56 | 2.81 |
= 0.19 (4, 232) = 13.95, < 0.001 |
Study 2 mediation model result. Partial support for the predicted sequential indirect effects of condition on collective action intention mediated by feelings of collective validation, collective anger and contempt. The direct effects of condition on collective anger and contempt and on collective empowerment were unexpected. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.01.
Overall, there is support for the primary prediction that being exposed to an episode of cancel culture will elicit feelings of collective validation and that these feelings of collective validation will be positively associated with collective action intentions. However, the overall correlation between Condition and Collective Action Intentions was small, suggesting possible other variables in the total effect.
Further, it was collective validation’s positive influence on collective anger and contempt, rather than empowerment, that accounted for its positive association with collective action intentions. In fact, while exposure to an episode of cancel culture and the subsequent feelings of collective validation were associated with collective empowerment, this empowerment did not enhance collective action intentions.
The significant association between Feelings of Collective Validation and Collective Anger and Contempt found in Study 2 is consistent with van Zomeren et al.’s (2004) work on affective social support versus instrumental social support. The description of the cancel culture episode in Study 2 included more evidence of shared affective experiences (e.g., it included more emotionally charged comments such as, “If this bigot loses his business because of this, so be it ”), and this evidence of shared emotions appears to have served to validate the participants’ own feelings of collective anger and contempt. Thus, this aspect of validation may be similar to what van Zomeren et al. (2004) are describing as affective social support, which they have shown increases interest in collective action through increased anger (e.g., van Zomeren et al., 2008b ). Thus, it appears that cancel culture can serve to collectively validate action-oriented negative emotions like anger and contempt if the content and tone of cancelling focuses on these shared emotions. Thus, collective validation may lead to collective action through either what van Zomeren et al. (2004) have called an emotional (usually anger; see also van Zomeren et al., 2008a ) pathway or the collective empowerment pathway shown in Study 1 – or perhaps in some cases through both pathways.
Further, there was an interesting and unexpected negative direct effect of Condition on Collective Anger and Contempt and negative indirect effect of Condition on Collective Action Intentions mediated by Collective Anger and Contempt. These findings may indicate that for our East Asian participants, exposure to cancel culture in defense of their group may alleviate perpetrator-directed negative emotions such as anger and contempt, rather than increase them. Perhaps this is because, through engaging in cancel culture, the superordinate group shares the emotional burden of anger and contempt with the harmed group, especially if affective social support is present. However, these findings also emphasise the importance of the role of collective validation in the model. More research is needed to understand these effects fully.
The lack of a significant effect of empowerment on collective action intention is inconsistent with the findings of previous research and theorizing (e.g., Drury et al., 2005 ), as well as the surprising significant negative collective validation and empowerment pathway in the exploratory analysis. There are several possible explanations for these findings. The measure of collective empowerment only included five of the 10 items because of a random error. It is also possible that the measure did not capture the aspects of collective empowerment that drive collective action.
The Collective Empowerment measure may be measuring something other than empowerment as it is usually defined and understood. Items on this empowerment measure such as “ humiliated ,” “ inferior ,” and “ defenseless ” may be capturing feelings of safety and group status instead of empowerment ( Hartling and Luchetta, 1999 ; Edmondson, 2004 ; Farbod et al., 2017 ) that may lead participants to disengage in response to harmful situations to protect themselves and their communities from further harm or backlash.
To roughly assess the construct validity of the measure, Model 81 was reanalyzed using only the “ empowerment” and “ in control of the situation” items of the Collective Empowerment measure (α = 0.86). Both items include components of empowerment as defined by Rappaport (1987) and Wright (2010) and are consistent with the empowerment measure used in Study 1. Overall, participants reported low Collective Empowerment ( x ̄ =1.95, SD = 0.95 on a 5-point scale). However, results show a significant, but small, positive direct effect of Collective Empowerment on Collective Action Intentions ( β = 0.12, SE = 0.06, 95% CI (0.00, 0.25), p = 0.05), with small positive significant indirect effects of Condition on Collective Action Intentions mediated by Collective Empowerment ( β = 0.07, 95% CI (0.00, 0.17)) and of Condition on Collective Action Intentions mediated sequentially by Feelings of Collective Validation and Collective Empowerment ( β = 0.03, 95% CI (0.00, 0.06)). Thus, while the effects are small, there is evidence that the negative items on the Moya-Garófano et al. (2021) empowerment measure may be impacting the construct validity of the measure.
The social identity of East Asian peoples might be important for understanding the pathway from collective validation to collective action. Indeed, some prior research has identified social identity as an important and meaningful predictor of collective action. For example, van Zomeren et al.’s (2008a) SIMCA includes politicized identity as a main predictive pathway of collective action (see also Simon and Klandermans, 2001 ). Similarly, Foster et al. (2021) found politicized identity to be important for women engaging in online collective action. Thus, it is possible that the scenario in each study primed participants to think more about their woman (Study 1) or East Asian (Study 2) identities and this may be responsible for the differing empowerment and collective anger and contempt results.
Further, most of the literature on empowerment and collective action focuses on White Western samples and contexts (see Zimmerman, 2000 ; Lardier et al., 2020 ), which may not generalize to the East Asian Canadians/Americans in this sample. Therefore, it is possible that episodes of cancel culture that explicitly provide greater affective social support of the East Asian community (as was done in Study 2), may inspire the kind of collective validation that allows for greater expression of perpetrator-directed negative emotions. This may be, in part, because this affective social support directly challenges stereotypical expectations of East Asian people imposed by the MMM ( Aguirre and Lio, 2008 ; Yoo et al., 2010 ; Lee, 2022 ).
Therefore, future research should consider the important role of specific social identities and the nature of the existing intergroup relations experienced by those groups. Feelings of collective validation and its impact on emotions and collective empowerment may vary depending on the specific histories, and current social realities of these different groups.
As well, it should be noted that the cancel culture scenarios in both studies were based on real-world instances and widely understood definitions of cancel culture. For example, Ng (2020) states that cancel culture is “ the withdrawal of any kind of support (viewership, social media follows, purchases of products endorsed by the person, etc.) for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective especially alert to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, racism, bullying, and related issues ” (p. 623). The scenarios used in the current studies reflect this definition. However, it must also be recognized that no direct manipulation checks were used to assess whether participants perceived the scenarios to reflect or represent an episode of cancel culture. Thus, future studies should address this potential limitation by including manipulation checks or providing other direct evidence that participants recognized the scenarios as reflecting the core elements of cancel culture.
Two experimental studies examined the role of feelings of collective validation in the context of cancel culture as an important determinant of collective action through its impact on collective empowerment and collective anger and contempt. Across both studies, there is evidence that feelings of collective validation play an important mediating role in the relationship between cancel culture and collective action intentions. However, the two studies provide a somewhat less definitive story concerning the mediational processes that account for collective validation’s association with collective action. Study 1 supports only a collective empowerment pathway from collective validation to collective action intentions in a sexism context, while Study 2 supports only a collective anger and contempt pathway from collective validation to collective action intentions in an anti-East Asian racism context.
Cancel culture, feelings of collective validation, and collective action intentions.
Overall, the present research provides novel evidence that cancel culture and feelings of collective validation should be included and examined in collective action research and theory. For example, through cancel culture, members of the superordinate group – which includes more than just members of the relevant ingroup and members of the perpetrator group – can be involved in challenging a perpetrator group’s actions and disrupting (however fleeting) the online economy of visibility and structures of inequalities. This support from other members of the superordinate group can be validating for members of the group that has been harmed and this validation can agitate them enough to challenge the individuals, groups, and systems that have perpetuated this harm.
These findings are consistent with a recent study by Foster et al. (2021 , see Study 2) who found that women were motivated toward collective action when they anticipated greater personal validation from others for responding to sexist tweets. Similarly, Droogendyk et al. (2016) identify “supportive contact” as an important determinant of increased collective action by the harmed group. This concept, in which an advantaged group member explicitly expresses their opposition to inequality and supports the harmed group’s goals, coincides with the elements of cancel culture (explicitly acknowledging harm and supporting group goals). Thus, it is possible that supportive contact elicits feelings of collective validation in similar ways as cancel culture and including measures of collective validation in future work on supportive contact may offer insights into the psychological mechanisms involved in its influences on collective action.
The present research also supports the inclusion of cancel culture and feelings of collective validation in research on allyship, as they appear to encompass important components of allyship. Along with supportive contact, Becker et al.’s (2022) (see also Becker and Wright, 2022) concept of “politicized contact” seems to be relevant to participation in cancel culture. In their work, Becker and colleagues show that contact that recognizes and includes discussion of group inequality is linked to greater solidarity-based allyship behaviour by advantaged group members. Thus, it seems that when members of the advantaged group, the harmed group, and even third-party groups all jointly engage, cancel culture could serve as a proxy for politicized contact and thus may increase solidarity-based collective action intentions among all three groups.
However, a critique of cancel culture is that it can backfire and alienate allies by making them afraid of being cancelled themselves for making simple mistakes. Ross (2021) claims “ [i]n our pursuit of political purity, we are alienating a lot of our allies, and we are criticizing them for not being ‘woke’ enough .” To address this strain on the ally-ingroup relationship, Ross promotes “call in” culture where allies and group members can have open, non-judgmental conversations about harm. Ross claims that call-in culture is about “ achieving accountability with grace, love, and respect as opposed to anger, shame, and humiliation .” This “call in” approach shares much with Becker et al.’s (2022) description of politicized contact and thus these conversations may well serve to increase allyship behaviours among the advantaged group.
However, the issue with positioning call-in culture and cancel culture against each other is that the goals and motivations of these two practices differ substantially. The goal for call-in culture, according to Ross, is to end oppression through meaningful work with allies, while one goal of cancel culture is to hold accountable powerful and perpetrator groups and people who refuse to hold themselves accountable. While calling someone in might be helpful with a willing and open ally, what happens when calling in fails because the harmful party refuses to acknowledge the harm they have caused? Who holds them responsible? How do we call in those with political and social power (e.g., celebrities, billionaires, politicians, police) who refuse to acknowledge their harmful actions? Thus, while Ross is correct in stating that the goal of the human rights movement is “ to end oppression ” and that call-in culture may be an effective method for achieving this long-term goal, it may also be true that a one-size-fits-all approach to achieving this goal is too narrow. Call-in culture may be less helpful where those who are marginalized and harmed are continuously silenced by their oppressors (e.g., as victims of sexual violence). In these situations, silencing perpetrators, prioritising support, and amplification of the harmed group seem more immediately important, especially if the harmed group deals with unique stereotypes and expectations based on their group identity (such as the MMM for East Asian communities). Therefore, cancel culture, as supported by the current research, may be effective in immediate harm-reduction for the harmed group in the form of feelings of collective validation and a subsequent stronger intention to work for change that may be another path to a long-term shift away from oppression.
The current research offers a novel theoretical and empirical introduction to the concept of collective validation and the understudied context of cancel culture to the existing research and theory in the social psychological literature on collective action and related topics (e.g., allyship). We found strong support that cancel culture is collectively validating for harmed groups, and that these feelings of collective validation mediate the relationship between cancel culture and collective action intentions. Therefore, we suggest and hope that future intergroup relations research on collective action and related concepts continue to utilise collective validation and cancel culture to deepen psychological understanding of collective action motivations and various psychological outcomes for harmed groups (e.g., wellbeing and life satisfaction, collective action intention and behaviour, empowerment, group identity, etc.).
Ethics statement.
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Simon Fraser University Research Ethics Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
MT: writing, editing, recruiting participants, creating materials and survey, constructing measures, main data analyses, methodology and statistical analyses plan, power analyses, and theoretical background. YT: editing, recruiting participants, creating materials, focus group, and minor data analyses. SW: editing, methodology and statistical analyses plan, creation of materials, theoretical background. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This research was funded by a CGS-M SSHRC and SPSSI Clara Mayo grant awarded to the corresponding author.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The authors would like to acknowledge that this research was – in part – conducted on stolen territory belonging to the Coast Salish Nations, specifically the xʷməθkʷəy̍əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), səl̍ilw̍ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), kʷikʷəƛ̍əm (Kwikwetlem), and q̍icə̍y̍ (Katzie) Nations, on which Simon Fraser University lies. We would also like to acknowledge that this research was funded by a CGS-M SSHRC and SPSSI Clara Mayo grant awarded to the corresponding author and that this research was conducted as a master’s thesis project which can be found on the Simon Fraser University Library website at: https://sfuprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/usv8m3/01SFUL_ALMA51445265030003611 .
1 Participants who spent less than 500 s on the survey had more incomplete data and tended to select the same scale values throughout (e.g., selecting five for every item). Participants who spent longer than 7,200 s on the survey were more likely to spend long periods of time on one page with questions that should only have taken minutes to complete, indicating that they may have left the survey open to complete other tasks and come back to it later.
2 See Supplementary materials for EFA.
3 No participant spent more than 7,200 s.
4 osf.io/qftn8
5 See Supplementary materials for EFA.
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181872/full#supplementary-material
Advertisement
Supported by
What we talk about when we talk about “cancellation.”
By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist
Cancel culture is destroying liberalism. No, cancel culture doesn’t exist. No, it has always existed; remember when Brutus and Cassius canceled Julius Caesar? No, it exists but it’s just a bunch of rich entitled celebrities complaining that people can finally talk back to them on Twitter. No, it doesn’t exist except when it’s good and the canceled deserve it. Actually, it does exist, but — well, look, I can’t explain it to you until you’ve read at least four open letters on the subject.
These are just a few of the answers that you’ll get to a simple question — “What is this cancel culture thing, anyway?” — if you’re foolish enough to toss it, like chum, into the seething waters of the internet. They’re contradictory because the phenomenon is complicated — but not complicated enough to deter me from making 10 sweeping claims about the subject.
So here goes:
“Reputation” and “employment” are key terms here. You are not being canceled if you are merely being heckled or insulted — if somebody describes you as a moron or a fascist or some profane alternative to “Douthat” on the internet — no matter how vivid and threatening the heckling becomes. You are decidedly at risk of cancellation, however, if your critics are calling for you to be de-platformed or fired or put out of business , and especially if the call is coming from inside the house — from within your professional community, from co-workers or employees or potential customers or colleagues, on a professional message board or Slack or some interest-specific slice of social media.
There is no human society where you can say or do anything you like and expect to keep your reputation and your job. Reputational cancellation hung over the heads of Edith Wharton’s heroines; professional cancellation shadowed 20th-century figures like Lenny Bruce. Today, almost all critics of cancel culture have some line they draw, some figure — usually a racist or anti-Semite — that they would cancel, too. And social conservatives who criticize cancel culture, especially, have to acknowledge that we’re partly just disagreeing with today’s list of cancellation-worthy sins.
The canceled individual hasn’t lost any First Amendment rights, because there is no constitutional right to a particular job or reputation. At the same time, under its own self-understanding, liberalism is supposed to clear a wider space for debate than other political systems and allow a wider range of personal expression. So you would expect a liberal society to be slower to cancel, more inclined to separate the personal and the professional (or the ideological and the artistic), and quicker to offer opportunities to regain one’s reputation and start one’s professional life anew.
“It’s a free country,” runs the American boast, and even if it doesn’t violate the Constitution, cancellation cuts against that promise — which is one reason arguments about cancel culture so often become arguments about liberalism itself.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
A Critical Analysis
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
41k Accesses
24 Citations
192 Altmetric
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Licence this eBook for your library
Institutional subscriptions
“Cancel culture” has become one of the most charged concepts in contemporary culture and politics, but mainstream critiques from both the left and the right provide only snapshots of responses to the phenomenon. Takinga media and cultural studies perspective, this book traces the origins of cancel practices and discourses, and discusses their subsequent evolution within celebrity and fan cultures, consumer culture, and national politics in the U.S. and China. Moving beyond popular press accounts about the latest targets of cancelling or familiar free speech debates, this analysis identifies multiple lineages for both cancelling and criticisms about cancelling, underscoring the various configurations of power associated with “cancel culture” in particular cultural and political contexts.
Deep culture in action: resignification, synecdoche, and metanarrative in the moral panic of the salem witch trials.
Front matter, introduction, cancel culture, popular media, and fandom, cancel culture, black cultural practice, and digital activism, cancel culture, u.s. conservatism, and nation, cancel culture and digital nationalism in mainland china, back matter, authors and affiliations, about the author.
Eve Ng is Associate Professor in the School of Media Arts and Studies and the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at Ohio University, USA. Her interdisciplinary scholarship examines LGBTQ media, digital media cultures, and constructions of national identity. She has published in numerous journals,including Communication , Culture & Critique , Development and Change , Feminist Media Studies , Feminist Studies , International Journal of Communication , Journal of Film and Video , Popular Communication , and Transformative Works and Culture .
Book Title : Cancel Culture
Book Subtitle : A Critical Analysis
Authors : Eve Ng
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97374-2
Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan Cham
eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies , Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)
Copyright Information : The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-97373-5 Published: 24 March 2022
Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-97376-6 Published: 25 March 2023
eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-97374-2 Published: 23 March 2022
Edition Number : 1
Number of Pages : IX, 153
Topics : Cultural Studies , Media and Communication
Policies and ethics
In this section.
See citation below for complete author information.
Wildpixel / Getty Images
Cancel culture examples.
What is cancel culture.
Cancel culture is a form of boycott. It is the removal or "canceling" of a person, organization, product, brand, or anything else due to an issue that a community or group disapproves of or finds offensive.
One definition of cancel culture is "the popular practice of withdrawing support for...public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive." This canceling is often "performed on social media in the form of group shaming .”
In short, to be canceled means that a person or group decides to stop supporting someone or something based on a transgression that is either actual or perceived.
These terms are often used interchangeably, but there is a difference. Call-out culture is about calling attention to someone's wrongdoing and giving them a chance to learn from and correct the issue. Cancel culture does not give this opportunity and, instead, immediately labels them as bad .
Although canceling is often used in response to sexist behavior , the term itself appears to originate from sexist humor. One of the earliest references came from the 1991 film New Jack City. Nino Brown (played by Wesley Snipes), referring to a girlfriend, mercilessly states, “Cancel that [expletive]. I’ll buy another one.”
The term gained traction in 2014 thanks to an episode of VH1's reality show Love and Hip-Hop: New York . In this episode, music executive and record producer Cisco Rosado ended an argument with his girlfriend by saying, "You're canceled.”
In earlier days, the word "cancel" was often used on social media as a way for a person who was part of the Black LGBTQ+ community to show disapproval of another person's actions. It wasn’t until later that canceling someone involved boycotting them professionally.
A 2020 survey conducted by Pew Research Center highlights the controversy surrounding cancel culture. While 38% of people say that calling someone out on social media punishes those who don't deserve it, 58% feel that it helps hold people accountable for their actions.
Some of the top reasons cited for canceling include:
Some examples of cancel culture include:
Cancel culture can help combat wrongdoings and address inequalities . In 2016, for example, many members of the film community boycotted the Oscars because of the lack of diversity among nominees. This helped promote social change and, in 2019, the Oscars set a record for the most nominations for Black directors ever.
A community that unites for a common cause can be empowering. It can also make people think twice before behaving inappropriately or posting potentially offensive thoughts and opinions.
There are also negative effects of cancel culture, some of which are related to mental health. The impact of cancel culture on mental health depends on whether you are the one being canceled, the canceler, or a bystander.
Unfortunately, canceling often turns into bullying . Like bullying, if you've been canceled, you may feel ostracized, socially isolated, and lonely. And research shows that loneliness is associated with higher anxiety, depression, and suicide rates.
If you are canceled, it can also feel as if everyone is giving up on you before you've even had the chance to apologize (let alone change your behavior). Instead of creating a dialogue to help you understand how your actions hurt others, the cancelers shut off all communication, essentially robbing you of the opportunity to learn and grow from your mistakes .
To grow and become a better person, it's important to realize you've made a mistake, attempt to fix that mistake, and then take the proper steps to ensure that you don't make the same mistake again .
You have the right to set your own boundaries and to decide what uplifts and what offends you. You also have the right to decide to whom and what you give your attention, money, and support.
But canceling the offending person (or brand) doesn't always cause them to change their beliefs or lead to lasting change. It can even make them dig in their heels in an effort to defend their ego and reputation.
In some cases, canceling has the opposite effect of what was desired. One example is the docuseries "Surviving R. Kelly ." While this TV series prompted many to push for a sex crimes conviction against the musician, it also created a 126% increase in on-demand streams of Kelly's music the day after the premiere.
Cancel culture doesn’t just affect the canceled and the cancelers. It can also wreak havoc on onlookers’ mental health.
After seeing so many people being canceled, some bystanders are plagued with fear. They become overwhelmed with anxiety that people will turn on them if they fully express themselves. This can cause them to keep their thoughts bottled up instead of talking about and working through their opinions and emotions.
Bystanders might also worry that others will find something in their pasts to use against them. Or they may fear that every word they say or write is going to be examined under a microscope and construed as offensive, even if it wasn't meant to be.
So, instead of saying how they feel about an event or situation, bystanders may choose to remain silent. This can lead them to be weighed down with guilt long after the event or situation has passed—guilt for not standing up for someone else when they had the chance.
The idea that cancel culture has caused some people to fall silent or not feel comfortable sharing what is on their minds has caused some to debate whether it presents an issue with the right to free speech.
Though you can't control how others behave, you can control your own behavior (as well as how you respond to negativity). Here are some actions you can take to help protect your mental health with regard to cancel culture:
Consider that everyone has different backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs. Although yours have caused you to view the world one way, not everyone has that same view. Being aware of this (and open-minded ) can help keep you from saying or doing something that makes you a target.
It's also helpful to remember that you don't have to intend to be offensive in order to offend. Perception becomes reality, so if someone perceives your words or actions as offensive, it doesn't matter what you intended. The damage is done.
So, instead of trying to convince others that you didn't mean to offend them, recognize that they are offended and work to find ways to move forward. Learn from the experience and use it to help you become a stronger, more caring, and empathetic person.
Some aspects of cancel culture can be useful in holding people and organizations accountable for bad behavior. On the flip side, it can take bullying to a new level, damaging the mental well-being of everyone involved.
The key to overcoming any sort of ostracism or rejection is to not allow the things that are said or done to define who you are as a person. And don't be afraid to reach out for help. Having someone in your corner can help you feel more connected and less alone.
Dictionary.com. Cancel culture: What does cancel culture mean?
Romano A. Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture . Vox .
Clark MD. DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture" . Communic Public . 2020;5(3-4):88-92. doi:10.1177/2057047320961562
Vogels E, Anderson M, Porteus M, et al. Americans and 'cancel culture': Where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment . Pew Research Center.
Camero K. What is 'cancel culture'? J.K. Rowling controversy leaves writers, scholars debating . Miami Herald .
Teh C, Lahut J. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell says he's 'disgusted' with 2 banks he claims are cutting ties with him over 'cancel culture' after his phone records were subpoenaed by the January 6 committee . Yahoo! News .
Ali R. 'There is no winning': Chrissy Teigen opens up about being in the 'cancel club' . USA Today .
Collins KA. The 2019 Oscar nominations are a long-overdue net win for black filmmakers . Vanity Fair .
Beutel ME, Klein EM, Brähler E, et al. Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health . BMC Psychiatry . 2017;17(1):97. doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x
Dudenhoefer N. Is cancel culture effective? . University of Central Florida.
University of Pennsylvania. Free speech advocate discusses growing talk of 'cancel culture' . Penn Today .
Hunt MG, Marx R, Lipson C, Young J. No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression . J Soc Clin Psychol . 2018;37(10):751-768. doi:10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751
By Lindsey Toler Lindsey Toler, MPH, is a public health professional with over a decade of experience writing and editing health and science communications.
How the concept has evolved to mean different things to different people.
by Aja Romano
“Cancel culture,” as a concept, feels inescapable. The phrase is all over the news, tossed around in casual social media conversation; it’s been linked to everything from free speech debates to Mr. Potato Head .
It sometimes seems all-encompassing, as if all forms of contemporary discourse must now lead, exhaustingly and endlessly, either to an attempt to “cancel” anyone whose opinions cause controversy or to accusations of cancel culture in action, however unwarranted.
In the rhetorical furor, a new phenomenon has emerged: the weaponization of cancel culture by the right.
Across the US, conservative politicians have launched legislation seeking to do the very thing they seem to be afraid of: Cancel supposedly left-wing businesses, organizations, and institutions; see, for example, national GOP figures threatening to punish Major League Baseball for standing against a Georgia voting restrictions law by removing MLB’s federal antitrust exemption.
Meanwhile, Fox News has stoked outrage and alarmism over cancel culture, including trying to incite Gen X to take action against the nebulous problem. Tucker Carlson, one of the network’s most prominent personalities, has emphatically embraced the anti-cancel culture discourse, claiming liberals are trying to cancel everything from Space Jam to the Fourth of July .
The idea of canceling began as a tool for marginalized communities to assert their values against public figures who retained power and authority even after committing wrongdoing — but in its current form, we see how warped and imbalanced the power dynamics of the conversation really are.
All along, debate about cancel culture has obscured its roots in a quest to attain some form of meaningful accountability for public figures who are typically answerable to no one. But after centuries of ideological debate turning over questions of free speech, censorship, and, in recent decades, “political correctness,” it was perhaps inevitable that the mainstreaming of cancel culture would obscure the original concerns that canceling was meant to address. Now it’s yet another hyperbolic phase of the larger culture war.
The core concern of cancel culture — accountability — remains as crucial a topic as ever. But increasingly, the cancel culture debate has become about how we communicate within a binary, right versus wrong framework. And a central question is not whether we can hold one another accountable, but how we can ever forgive.
It’s only been about six years since the concept of “cancel culture” began trickling into the mainstream. The phrase has long circulated within Black culture, perhaps paying homage to Nile Rodgers’s 1981 single “Your Love Is Cancelled.” As I wrote in my earlier explainer on the origins of cancel culture , the concept of canceling a whole person originated in the 1991 film New Jack City and percolated for years before finally emerging online among Black Twitter in 2014 thanks to an episode of Love and Hip-Hop: New York. Since then, the term has undergone massive shifts in meaning and function.
Early on, it most frequently popped up on social media, as people attempted to collectively “cancel,” or boycott, celebrities they found problematic. As a term with roots in Black culture, it has some resonance with Black empowerment movements, as far back as the civil rights boycotts of the 1950s and ’60s . This original usage also promotes the idea that Black people should be empowered to reject cultural figures or works that spread harmful ideas. As Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America at the University of California Santa Barbara, told me in 2019 , “When you see people canceling Kanye, canceling other people, it’s a collective way of saying, ‘We elevated your social status, your economic prowess, [and] we’re not going to pay attention to you in the way that we once did. ... ‘I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.’”
As the logic behind wanting to “cancel” specific messages and behaviors caught on, many members of the public, as well as the media, conflated it with adjacent trends involving public shaming, callouts, and other forms of public backlash . (The media sometimes refers to all of these ideas collectively as “ outrage culture .”) But while cancel culture overlaps and aligns with many related ideas, it’s also always been inextricably linked to calls for accountability.
As a concept, cancel culture entered the mainstream alongside hashtag-oriented social justice movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo — giant social waves that were effective in shifting longstanding narratives about victims and criminals, and in bringing about actual prosecutions in cases like those of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein . It is also frequently used interchangeably with “woke” political rhetoric , an idea that is itself tied to the 2014 rise of the Black Lives Matter protests. In similar ways, both “wokeness” and “canceling” are tied to collectivized demands for more accountability from social systems that have long failed marginalized people and communities.
But over the past few years, many right-wing conservatives, as well as liberals who object to more strident progressive rhetoric, have developed the view that “cancel culture” is a form of harassment intended to silence anyone who sets a foot out of line under the nebulous tenets of “woke” politics . So the idea now represents a vast assortment of objectives and can hold wildly different connotations, depending on whom you’re talking to.
Taken in good faith, the concept of “canceling” a person is really about questions of accountability — about how to navigate a social and public sphere in which celebrities, politicians, and other public figures who say or do bad things continue to have significant platforms and influence. In fact, actor LeVar Burton recently suggested the entire idea should be recast as “consequence culture.”
“I think it’s misnamed,” Burton told the hosts of The View . “I think we have a consequence culture. And that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society, whereas they haven’t been ever in this country.”
Within the realm of good faith, the larger conversation around these questions can then expand to contain nuanced considerations of what the consequences of public misbehavior should be, how and when to rehabilitate the reputation of someone who’s been “canceled,” and who gets to decide those things.
Taken in bad faith, however, “cancel culture” becomes an omniscient and dangerous specter: a woke, online social justice mob that’s ready to rise up and attack anyone, even other progressives, at the merest sign of dissent. And it’s this — the fear of a nebulous mob of cancel-happy rabble-rousers — that conservatives have used to their political advantage.
Critics of cancel culture typically portray whoever is doing the canceling as wielding power against innocent victims of their wrath. From 2015 on, a variety of news outlets, whether through opinion articles or general reporting , have often framed cancel culture as “ mob rule .”
In 2019, the New Republic’s Osita Nwanevu observed just how frequently some media outlets have compared cancel culture to violent political uprisings, ranging from ethnocide to torture under dictatorial regimes. Such an exaggerated framework has allowed conservative media to depict cancel culture as an urgent societal issue. Fox News pundits, for example, have made cancel culture a focal part of their coverage . In one recent survey , people who voted Republican were more than twice as likely to know what “cancel culture” was, compared with Democrats and other voters, even though in the current dominant understanding of cancel culture, Democrats are usually the ones doing the canceling.
“The conceit that the conservative right has gotten so many people to adopt , beyond divorcing the phrase from its origins in Black queer communities, is an obfuscation of the power relations of the stakeholders involved,” journalist Shamira Ibrahim told Vox in an email. “It got transformed into a moral panic akin to being able to irrevocably ruin the powerful with just the press of a keystroke, when it in actuality doesn’t wield nearly as much power as implied by the most elite.”
You wouldn’t know that to listen to right-wing lawmakers and media figures who have latched onto an apocalyptic scenario in which the person or subject who’s being criticized is in danger of being censored, left jobless, or somehow erased from history — usually because of a perceived left-wing mob.
This is a fear that the right has weaponized. At the 2020 Republican National Convention , at least 11 GOP speakers — about a third of those who took the stage during the high-profile event — addressed cancel culture as a concerning political phenomenon. President Donald Trump himself declared that “The goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated and driven from society as we know it.” One delegate resolution at the RNC specifically targeted cancel culture , describing a trend toward “erasing history, encouraging lawlessness, muting citizens, and violating free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and speech.”
Ibrahim pointed out that in addition to re-waging the war on political correctness that dominated the 1990s by repackaging it as a war on cancel culture, right-wing conservatives have also “attempted to launch the same rhetorical battles” across numerous fronts, attempting to rebrand the same calls for accountability and consequences as “woke brigade, digital lynch mobs, outrage culture and call-out culture.” Indeed, it’s because of the collective organizational power that online spaces provide to marginalized communities, she argued, that anti-cancel culture rhetoric focuses on demonizing them.
Social media is “one of the few spaces that exists for collective feedback and where organizing movements that threaten [conservatives’] social standing have begun,” Ibrahim said, “thus compelling them to invert it into a philosophical argument that doesn’t affect just them, but potentially has destructive effects on censorship for even the working-class individual.”
This potential has nearly become reality through recent forms of Republican-driven legislation around the country. The first wave involved overt censorship , with lawmakers pushing to ban texts like the New York Times’s 1619 Project from educational usage at publicly funded schools and universities. Such censorship could seriously curtail free speech at these institutions — an ironic example of the broader kind of censorship that is seemingly a core fear about cancel culture.
A recent wave of legislation has been directed at corporations as a form of punishment for crossing Republicans. After both Delta Air Lines and Major League Baseball spoke out against Georgia lawmakers’ passage of a restrictive voting rights bill , Republican lawmakers tried to target the companies, tying their public statements to cancel culture. State lawmakers tried and failed to pass a bill stripping Delta of a tax exemption . And some national GOP figures have threatened to punish MLB by removing its exemption from federal antitrust laws. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that “corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs.”
But for all the hysteria and the actual crackdown attempts lawmakers have enacted, even conservatives know that most of the hand-wringing over cancellation is performative. CNN’s AJ Willingham pointed out how easily anti-cancel culture zeal can break down, noting that although the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was called “America Uncanceled,” the organization wound up removing a scheduled speaker who had expressed anti-Semitic viewpoints. And Fox News fired a writer last year after he was found to have a history of making racist, homophobic, and sexist comments online.
These moves suggest that though they may decry “woke” hysteria, conservatives also sometimes want consequences for extremism and other harmful behavior — at least when the shaming might fall on them as well.
“This dissonance reveals cancel culture for what it is,” Willingham wrote. “Accountability for one’s actions.”
CPAC’s swift levying of consequences in the case of a potentially anti-Semitic speaker is revealing on a number of levels, not only because it gives away the lie beneath concerns that “cancel culture” is something profoundly new and dangerous, but also because the conference actually had the power to take action and hold the speaker accountable. Typically, the apocryphal “social justice mob” has no such ability. Actually canceling a whole person is much harder to do than opponents of cancel culture might make it sound — nearly impossible, in fact.
It’s true that some celebrities have effectively been canceled, in the sense that their actions have resulted in major consequences, including job losses and major reputational declines, if not a complete end to their careers.
Consider Harvey Weinstein , Bill Cosby , R. Kelly , and Kevin Spacey , who faced allegations of rape and sexual assault that became impossible to ignore, and who were charged with crimes for their offenses. They have all effectively been “canceled” — Weinstein and Cosby because they’re now convicted criminals, Kelly because he’s in prison awaiting trial , and Spacey because while all charges against him to date have been dropped, he’s too tainted to hire.
Along with Roseanne Barr, who lost her hit TV show after a racist tweet , and Louis C.K., who saw major professional setbacks after he admitted to years of sexual misconduct against female colleagues, their offenses were serious enough to irreparably damage their careers, alongside a push to lessen their cultural influence.
But usually, to effectively cancel a public figure is much more difficult. In typical cases where “cancel culture” is applied to a famous person who does something that incurs criticism, that person rarely faces serious long-term consequences. During the past year alone, a number of individuals and institutions have faced public backlash for troubling behavior or statements — and a number of them thus far have either weathered the storm or else departed their jobs or restructured their operations of their own volition.
For example, beloved talk show host Ellen DeGeneres has come under fire in recent years for a number of reasons, from palling around with George W. Bush to accusing the actress Dakota Johnson of not inviting her to a party to, most seriously, allegedly fostering an abusive and toxic workplace . The toxic workplace allegations had an undeniable impact on DeGeneres’s ratings, with The Ellen DeGeneres Show losing over 40 percent of its viewership in the 2020–’21 TV season. But DeGeneres has not literally been canceled; her daytime talk show has been confirmed for a 19th season, and she continues to host other TV series like HBO Max’s Ellen’s Next Great Designer .
Another TV host recently felt similar heat but has so far retained his job: In February, The Bachelor franchise underwent a reckoning due to a long history of racial insensitivity and lack of diversity, culminating in the announcement that longtime host Chris Harrison would be “ stepping aside for a period of time.” But while Harrison won’t be hosting the upcoming season of The Bachelorette , ABC still lists him as the franchise host, and some franchise alums have come forward to defend him . (It is unclear whether Harrison will return as a host in the future, though he has said he plans to do so and has been working with race educators and engaging in a personal accountability program of “counsel, not cancel.”)
In many cases, instead of costing someone their career, the allegation of having been “canceled” instead bolsters sympathy for the offender, summoning a host of support from both right-wing media and the public. In March 2021, concerns that Dr. Seuss was being “canceled” over a decision by the late author’s publisher to stop printing a small selection of works containing racist imagery led to a run on Seuss’s books that landed him on bestseller lists. And although J.K. Rowling sparked massive outrage and calls to boycott all things Harry Potter after she aired transphobic views in a 2020 manifesto, sales of the Harry Potter books increased tremendously in her home country of Great Britain.
A few months later, 58 British public figures including playwright Tom Stoppard signed an open letter supporting Rowling’s views and calling her the target of “an insidious, authoritarian and misogynistic trend in social media.” And in December, the New York Times not only reviewed the author’s latest title — a new children’s book called The Ickabog — but praised the story’s “moral rectitude,” with critic Sarah Lyall summing up, “It made me weep with joy.” It was an instant bestseller .
In light of these contradictions, it’s tempting to declare that the idea of “canceling” someone has already lost whatever meaning it once had. But for many detractors, the “real” impact of cancel culture isn’t about famous people anyway.
Rather, they worry, “cancel culture” and the polarizing rhetoric it enables really impacts the non-famous members of society who suffer its ostensible effects — and that, even more broadly, it may be threatening our ability to relate to each other at all.
It’s not only right-wing conservatives who are wary of cancel culture. In 2019, former President Barack Obama decried cancel culture and “woke” politics, framing the phenomenon as people “be[ing] as judgmental as possible about other people” and adding, “That’s not activism.”
At a recent panel devoted to making a nonpartisan “ Case Against Cancel Culture ,” former ACLU president Nadine Strossen expressed great concern over cancel culture’s chilling effect on the non-famous. “I constantly encounter students who are so fearful of being subjected to the Twitter mob that they are engaging in self-censorship,” she said. Strossen cited as one such chilling effect the isolated instances of students whose college admissions had been rescinded on the basis of racist social media posts.
In his recent book Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture , human rights lawyer and free speech advocate Dan Kovalik argues that cancel culture is basically a giant self-own, a product of progressive semantics that causes the left to cannibalize itself.
“Unfortunately, too many on the left, wielding the cudgel of ‘cancel culture,’ have decided that certain forms of censorship and speech and idea suppression are positive things that will advance social justice,” Kovalik writes . “I fear that those who take this view are in for a rude awakening.”
Kovalik’s worries are partly grounded in a desire to preserve free speech and condemn censorship. But they’re also grounded in empathy. As America’s ideological divide widens, our patience with opposing viewpoints seems to be waning in favor of a type of society-wide “cancel and move on” approach, even though studies suggest that approach does nothing to change hearts and minds. Kovalik points to a survey published in 2020 that found that in 700 interactions, “deep listening” — including “respectful, non-judgmental conversations” — was 102 times more effective than brief interactions in a canvassing campaign for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Across the political spectrum, wariness toward the idea of “cancel culture” has increased — but outside of right-wing political spheres, that wariness isn’t so centered on the hyper-specific threat of losing one’s job or career due to public backlash. Rather, the term “cancel culture” functions as shorthand for an entire mode of polarized, aggressive social engagement.
Journalist (and Vox contributor) Zeeshan Aleem has argued that contemporary social media engenders a mode of communication he calls “disinterpretation,” in which many participants are motivated to join the conversation not because they want to promote communication, or even to engage with the original opinion, but because they seek to intentionally distort the discourse.
In this type of interaction, as Aleem observed in a recent Substack post, “Commentators are constantly being characterized as believing things they don’t believe, and entire intellectual positions are stigmatized based on vague associations with ideas that they don’t have any substantive affiliation with.” The goal of such willful misinterpretation, he argued, is conformity — to be seen as aligned with the “correct” ideological standpoint in a world where stepping out of alignment results in swift backlash, ridicule, and cancellation.
Such an antagonistic approach “effectively treats public debate as a battlefield,” he wrote. He continued:
It’s illustrative of a climate in which nothing is untouched by polarization, in which everything is a proxy for some broader orientation which must be sorted into the bin of good/bad, socially aware/problematic, savvy/out of touch, my team/the enemy. ... We’re tilting toward a universe in which all discourse is subordinate to activism; everything is a narrative, and if you don’t stay on message then you’re contributing to the other team on any given issue. What this does is eliminate the possibility of public ambiguity, ambivalence, idiosyncrasy, self-interrogation.
The problem with this style of communication is that in a world where every argument gets flattened into a binary under which every opinion and every person who publicly shares their thoughts must be either praised or canceled, few people are morally righteous enough to challenge that binary without their own motives and biases then being called into question. The question becomes, as Aleem reframed it for me: “How does someone avoid the reality that their claims of being disinterpreted will be disinterpreted?”
“When people demand good-faith engagement, it can often be dismissed as a distraction tactic or whining about being called out,” he explained, noting that some responses to his original Twitter thread on the subject assumed he must be complaining about just such a callout.
Other complications can arise, such as when the people who are protesting against this type of bad-faith discourse are also criticized for problematic statements or behavior , or perceived as having too much privilege to wholly understand the situation. Remember, the origins of cancel culture are rooted in giving marginalized members of society the ability to seek accountability and change, especially from people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, power, and privilege.
“[W]hat people do when they invoke dog whistles like ‘cancel culture’ and ‘culture wars,’” Danielle Butler wrote for the Root in 2018, “is illustrate their discomfort with the kinds of people who now have a voice and their audacity to direct it towards figures with more visibility and power.”
But far too often, people who call for accountability on social media seem to slide quickly into wanting to administer punishment instead. In some cases, this process really does play out with a mob mentality, one that seems bent on inflicting pain and hurt while allowing no room for growth and change, showing no mercy, and offering no real forgiveness — let alone allowing for the possibility that the mob itself might be entirely unjustified.
See, for example, trans writer Isabel Fall, who wrote a short story in 2020 that angered many readers with its depiction of gender dysphoria through the lens of militaristic warfare. (The story has since become a finalist for a Hugo Award.) Because Fall published under a pseudonym, people who disliked the story assumed she must be transphobic rather than a trans woman wrestling with her own dysphoria. Fall was harassed, doxed, forcibly outed, and driven offline . These types of “cancellations” can happen without consideration for the person being canceled, even when that person apologizes — or, as in Fall’s case, even when they had little if anything to be sorry about.
The conflation of antagonized social media debates with the more serious aims to make powerful people face consequences is part of the problem. “I think the messy and turbulent evolution of speech norms online influences people’s perception of what’s called cancel culture,” Aleem said. He added that he’s grown “resistant to using the term [cancel culture] because it’s become so hard to pin down.”
“People connect boycotts with de-platforming speakers on college campuses,” he observed, “with social media harassment, with people being fired abruptly for breaching a taboo in a viral video.” The result is an environment where social media is a double-edged sword: “One could argue,” Aleem said, “that there’s now public input on issues [that wasn’t available] before, and that’s good for civil society, but that the vehicle through which that input comes produces some civically unhealthy ways of expression.”
If the conversation around cancel culture is unhealthy, then one can argue that the social systems cancel culture is trying to target are even more unhealthy — and that, for many people, is the bottom line.
The concept of canceling someone was created by communities of people who’ve never had much power to begin with. When people in those communities attempt to demand accountability by canceling someone, the odds are still stacked against them. They’re still the ones without the social, political, or professional power to compel someone into meaningful atonement, but they can at least be vocal by calling for a collective boycott.
The push by right-wing lawmakers and pundits to use the concept as a tool to vilify the left, liberals, and the powerless upends the original logic of cancel culture, Ibrahim told me. “It is being used to obscure marginalized voices by inverting the victim and the offender, and disingenuously affording disproportionate impact to the reach of a single voice — which has historically long been silenced — to now being the silencer of cis, male, and wealthy individuals,” she said.
And that approach is both expanding and growing more visible. What’s more, it is a divide not just between ideologies, but also between tactical approaches in navigating those ideological differences and dealing with wrongdoing.
“It effectuates a slippery-slope argument by taking a rhetorical scenario and pushing it to really absurdist levels, and furthermore asking people to suspend their implicit understanding of social constructs of power and class,” Ibrahim said. “It mutates into, ‘If I get canceled, then anyone can get canceled.’” She pointed out that usually, the supposedly “canceled” individual suffers no real long-term harm — “particularly when you give additional time for a person to regroup from a scandal. The media cycle iterates quicker than ever in present day.”
She suggested that perhaps the best approach to combating the escalation of cancel culture hysteria into a political weapon is to refuse to let those with power shape the way the conversation plays out.
“I think our remit, if anything, is to challenge that reframing and ask people to define the stakes of what material quality of life and liberty was actually lost,” she said.
In other words, the way cancel culture is discussed in the media might make it seem like something to fear and avoid at all costs, an apocalyptic event that will destroy countless lives and livelihoods, but in most cases, it’s probably not. That’s not to suggest that no one will ever be held accountable, or that powerful people won’t continue to be asked to answer for their transgressions. But the greater worry is still that people with too much power might use it for bad ends.
At its best, cancel culture has been about rectifying power imbalances and redistributing power to those who have little of it. Instead, it now seems that the concept may have become a weapon for people in power to use against those it was intended to help.
Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.
India has systemic problems with sexual violence.
The truth behind the ongoing controversy over the highly memeable dancer.
The FBI is now investigating the former president’s claim of Iranian interference with his campaign.
Rumors and disinformation have fueled violence across the country.
What the attack on US troops in Iraq says about a wider Middle East war.
Bangladesh’s Sheikh Hasina is out. What comes next?
Family and community engagement program.
Free digital citizenship resources for back-to-school, from AI to cellphone bans and beyond!
Topics: Digital Citizenship Social & Emotional Learning
Grades: 8-12
Subjects: Digital Citizenship, SEL, Media Literacy, Social Studies
What is cancel culture? A 2021 report from Pew Research Center found that the American public is deeply divided over how to define it. Some people view it as a way to hold a person or group of people accountable for a past misdeed. Others see it as an unfair judgment of someone's character, or even the practice of censoring people whose opinions we don't agree with.
One of the common threads among these varying definitions of "cancel culture" is the idea that it involves someone or something being publicly called out online. In this lesson, you can help students consider where they stand. Is "canceling" someone ever a good way to get a just outcome? Could it sometimes go too far?
Use these lesson activities to help your students think deeply about the impact of cancel culture -- both among peers and directed at people or institutions in power -- and explore positive strategies for resolving conflict and seeking accountability.
Learning objectives:
This lesson deep dive has three independent parts. You can string them together, or pull them apart to complement other parts of your curriculum.
Quick Activity: Does Canceling Someone Help Them Change? (25 minutes)
Dilemma Discussion: Accidental Activist (45 minutes)
Media Creation: "Call In" and Build Support (time varies)
Note: All of these lessons are free, but you'll need to sign in (or create an account) to access the printable handouts.
Prep for teachers:
Activity steps:
1. Before showing the video, ask: What does it mean to "cancel" someone? What does it look like to "cancel" someone?
Explain that cancel culture is a complex topic that requires us to think critically about who is causing the harm, what their motive is, the degree of harm, and several other factors. This video and discussion focuses on peer-to-peer canceling.
2. Show the video Does Canceling Someone Help Them Change? and have students complete the "Call-Out Culture" handout as they watch. Refer to the teacher version of the handout as you guide the class discussion.
Pressing play on the YouTube video will set third-party cookies controlled by Google if you are logged in to Chrome. See Google's cookie information for details.
3. Explain that at the end of the video, Aviva says, "The internet is supposed to be a tool, not a weapon." Ask: What does she mean by that, and how does it relate to conflict resolution and call-out culture?
4. Refer to Part 2 of the "Call-Out Culture" student handout and read aloud the quote by Loretta J. Ross to introduce the concept of "call-in culture." Then have students complete the reflection question and share out as time permits.
Prep for teachers:
Activity Steps:
1. Say: "Calling out" people on social media who've done harmful things can be complicated. On one hand, it can be a way of holding someone accountable and stopping them from continuing the harm. But on the other hand, publicly shaming someone in this way often doesn't help them change or learn, and can also shut down the opportunity for open dialogue about the issue. Deciding whether "calling out" is the right or wrong thing to do may depend a lot on the actual circumstances.
If you haven't already taught the Quick Activity with your class, we recommend first showing the video Does Canceling Someone Help Them Change? so students can gain a deeper understanding of the concept of cancel culture.
2. Distribute the "Accidental Activist" student handout and explain to students that they'll be using the "Feelings & Options" thinking routine to consider whether calling out someone or something online is an effective way to seek social change.
"Feelings & Options" is a thinking routine that supports communication, empathy, and thoughtful decision-making for digital dilemmas in social life. Learn more about teaching with dilemmas and thinking routines.
3. After reading the dilemma as a class, have students work in pairs or groups to discuss and complete the questions that follow. Use the teacher version of the "Accidental Activist" handout for detailed facilitation guidance and suggestions for an enriching discussion.
4. With students still in pairs or groups, have them discuss one or more of the scenarios in Part 2 of the handout. Then bring the class back together and have each group share out and discuss how their perspectives may have changed.
1. Distribute the "Call-In & Build Support" project handout and read through the directions as a class. Ensure that students have a good working understanding of "call-in" culture, including what it might look and sound like in practice.
2. Allow students to brainstorm ideas for written or visual work before creating.
3. Share student work with the class or in any forum you find appropriate.
Image courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action .
Daniel Vargas Campos is an Education Content Specialist at Common Sense Education. He develops research-backed educational resources that support young people to thrive in a digitally interconnected world. He has over 4 years of experience as a content creator in the education technology space. Prior to joining Common Sense Education, Daniel was a graduate instructor and researcher at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education where he studied the impact of educational technologies in the lives of students from non-dominant backgrounds. He holds an MA in Social and Cultural Studies from UC Berkeley and a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies from Tufts University.
As Director, Education Programs & Development for Common Sense Education, Eisha oversees education programming and content strategy for the Digital Citizenship Program. She has over 10 years of experience working in the K-12 education sector, starting out as a middle and high school teacher, and then focusing more deeply on curriculum development, teacher professional development and training, and program evaluation. Eisha develops research-based curricula to ensure the digital well-being of all students, with dedicated efforts to helping promote a positive learning culture around media and technology within schools. Eisha holds a B.A. in economics and political science from the University of Michigan and a M.A. in education from St. John's University.
Use these free lesson plans to help students apply media literacy skills in a real-world context.
Use this free lesson plan to help students think critically about conspiracy theories and how to respond to them.
Free lessons and activities to spark students' curiosity, critical thinking, and civic engagement.
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.
Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. A total of 10,093 panelists responded out of 11,506 who were sampled, for a response rate of 88%. This does not include three panelists who were removed from the data due to extremely high rates of refusal or straightlining. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 5%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1.7%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 10,093 respondents is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.
This study featured a stratified random sample from the ATP. The sample was allocated according to the following strata, in order: tablet households, U.S.-born Hispanics, foreign-born Hispanics, high school education or less, foreign-born Asians, not registered to vote, people ages 18 to 34, uses internet weekly or less, non-Hispanic Black adults, nonvolunteers and all other categories not already falling into any of the above. Panelists who had not yet completed the annual profile survey were ineligible.
The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.
In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a random, address-based sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Across these three address-based recruitments, a total of 17,161 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 15,134 (88%) agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. Of the 25,076 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 15,373 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.
The U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range. 1 The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.
The ATP data was weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey (and the probability of being invited to participate in the panel in cases where only a subsample of respondents were invited). The base weights for panelists recruited in different years are scaled to be proportionate to the effective sample size for all active panelists in their cohort. To correct for nonresponse to the initial recruitment surveys and gradual panel attrition, the base weights for all active panelists are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table to create a full-panel weight.
For ATP waves in which only a subsample of panelists are invited to participate, a wave-specific base weight is created by adjusting the full-panel weights for subsampled panelists to account for any differential probabilities of selection for the particular panel wave. For waves in which all active panelists are invited to participate, the wave-specific base weight is identical to the full-panel weight.
In the final weighting step, the wave-specific base weights for panelists who completed the survey are again calibrated to match the population benchmarks specified above. These weights are trimmed (typically at about the 1st and 99th percentiles) to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and test of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.
The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:
Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response was mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.)
After all responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. As such, these answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.
We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents’ arguments for why they held their views of calling out others for their posts on social media. The data breaks down across these main disputes as follows:
For the codes that make up each of these areas, see the Appendix .
© Pew Research Center, 2021
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
Many adults in east and southeast asia support free speech, are open to societal change, americans’ views of technology companies, most americans say a free press is highly important to society, most americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online, most popular.
901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .
© 2024 Pew Research Center
IMAGES
COMMENTS
And some argue that cancel culture doesn't even exist. To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share - in their own words - what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media.
Americans have become increasingly aware of the phrase "cancel culture," according to a new Pew Research Center survey. And when it comes to calling out other people for posting potentially offensive content on social media, the public has become somewhat more likely to see this type of behavior as punishing people who didn't deserve it, rather than holding them accountable.
Cancel culture merupakan fenomena boikot massal yang dilakukan melalui media sosial. Penyebab dari cancel culture ini adalah kurangnya informasi yang valid, serta adanya mob mentality atau mental ...
Familiarity with the term cancel culture varied by age, gender and education level, but not political party affiliation, according to the same survey.. Younger adults were more likely to have heard about cancel culture than their older counterparts. Roughly two-thirds (64%) of adults under 30 said they'd heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, compared with 46% of those ages ...
In the hour-long video, she has identified seven "cancel culture tropes": a "presumption of guilt," "abstraction," "essentialism," "pseudo-moralism or pseudo-intellectualism," "no forgiveness," "the transitive property of cancellation," and "dualism.". This is where cancel culture can become dangerous.
That is, an episode of cancel culture might provide the conditions for the harmed group to experience feelings of collective validation that, in turn, could increase feelings of empowerment that inspire or maintain collective action. To our knowledge, this research is the first social psychological analysis of the impact of cancel culture on ...
This research illuminates the process of cancel culture, specifically in how social media. trategies tha. determine if a cancellation istaking place. This provided the necessary d. ta to form a pilot model for canceling, w. ichdemonstrates the steps of a cancellation. T. y in determining the strategies Twitter us.
While cancel culture has become a social media buzzword, scholarly understanding of this phenomenon is still at its nascent stage. To contribute to a more nuanced understanding of cancel culture, this study uses a sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach by starting with in-depth interviews with social media users (n = 20) followed by a national online survey (n = 786) in Singapore.
Cancel culture and wokeism are dangerous trends that are increasing in their intensity and the self-destruction of Western civilization is a matter of time as the underlying historical myths and ...
7. Cancel culture is most effective against people who are still rising in their fields, and it influences many people who don't actually get canceled. The point of cancellation is ultimately to ...
About this book. "Cancel culture" has become one of the most charged concepts in contemporary culture and politics, but mainstream critiques from both the left and the right provide only snapshots of responses to the phenomenon. Takinga media and cultural studies perspective, this book traces the origins of cancel practices and discourses ...
Abstract. In recent years, a progressive "cancel culture" in society, right-wing politicians and commentators claim, has silenced alternative perspectives, ostracized contrarians, and eviscerated robust intellectual debate, with college campuses at the vanguard of this development. These arguments can be dismissed as rhetorical dog whistles ...
This study provides a definition of cancel culture through the perspectives of generation Z social media users and discusses the duality in which cancel culture is a form of social media activism, but also contributes to creating a spiral of silence online. Keywords: Cancel culture, STOPs Theory, Spiral of Silence, Social media, Twitter, Activism,
In recent years, a progressive "cancel culture" in society, right-wing politicians and commentators claim, has silenced alternative perspectives, ostracized contrarians, and eviscerated robust intellectual debate, with college campuses at the vanguard of this development. These arguments can be dismissed as rhetorical dog whistles devoid of substantive meaning, myths designed to fire up ...
Currently, scholars have expounded on cancel culture, social work practice and social service research. For example, Tandoc et al. (2022) found that cancel culture is more than just a mob engaged ...
cancel culture as a phenomenon. While intending to research and define what cancel culture is and understand the parameters of cancelations, I found the existence of a complex matrix through which users operate as digital trials and juries using social media platforms. To further understand cancel culture at both micro and macro levels, I
8. 18 Actions taken to hold others accountable Censorship of speech or history Mean-spirited actions taken to cause others harm People cancelling anyone they disagree with Those who are challenged face consequences like being fired or boycotted An attack on traditional American society. way to call out racism, sexism, etc.
Positive Impact of Cancel Culture. Cancel culture can help combat wrongdoings and address inequalities. In 2016, for example, many members of the film community boycotted the Oscars because of the lack of diversity among nominees. This helped promote social change and, in 2019, the Oscars set a record for the most nominations for Black ...
In his recent book Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture, human rights lawyer and free speech advocate Dan Kovalik argues that cancel culture is basically a giant self-own ...
Cancel culture is a cultural phenomenon in which an individual deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner is ostracized, boycotted, ... A survey conducted in September 2020 on 10,000 Americans by Pew Research Center asked a series of different questions in regard to cancel culture, ...
Grades: 8-12 Subjects: Digital Citizenship, SEL, Media Literacy, Social Studies What is cancel culture? A 2021 report from Pew Research Center found that the American public is deeply divided over how to define it. Some people view it as a way to hold a person or group of people accountable for a past misdeed. Others see it as an unfair judgment of someone's character, or even the practice of ...
Conversely, cancel culture has also been framed as a form of intolerance against opposing views. In this essay, I unpack the nuances and implications of cancel culture through Neil Alperstein's ...
cancel culture experience loneliness, isolated and ostracization, which in some cases lead to depression, anxiety, and other associated condition (Spelmen, 2021). The negative impacts of cancel culture on the reputation of individuals in the online setting are the driving force of the researchers to conduct the study "Cancel Culture: A Case
The American Trends Panel survey methodology. The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection.