Public Shaming and the Psychology of Humiliation
The Role of Social Identity in Cancel Culture
Public shaming and cancel culture have become pervasive phenomena, capturing widespread attention in today’s digital age. Cancel culture involves the collective act of boycotting or ostracizing individuals for behaviors or statements perceived as harmful or offensive, often conducted in highly public and social media-driven forums. Public shaming, a practice with historical roots, entails exposing someone’s perceived wrongdoing in a manner that invites societal condemnation and personal humiliation. Together, these mechanisms serve as tools for social accountability, but their psychological and societal impacts extend far beyond their immediate contexts. They raise critical questions about identity, morality, and the ways human behavior is shaped by group dynamics and collective outrage. By examining the psychological underpinnings of these practices, including the role of social identity, moral outrage, and the emotional effects of humiliation, this article explores what cancel culture reveals about human behavior and how we might navigate its complexities with greater empathy and understanding.
Introduction
Cancel culture and public shaming are two of the most debated phenomena in contemporary society. Cancel culture refers to the collective action of boycotting or ostracizing individuals, often through social media, for behaviors or statements deemed offensive or harmful. Public shaming, an ancient social practice, involves exposing and criticizing someone’s perceived wrongdoing in a manner that invites humiliation and societal condemnation. Together, these practices form a potent mechanism for social accountability and, at times, retribution. However, their psychological underpinnings reveal much about the interplay between identity, morality, and the human need for belonging.
History of Cancel Culture
Cancel culture, while often regarded as a contemporary phenomenon, has deep historical roots that predate the digital age. Throughout history, societies have employed public shaming as a mechanism to enforce social norms and punish deviance. In ancient and early modern societies, this practice was often formalized through institutions and rituals. For example, in medieval Europe, individuals accused of moral or criminal transgressions were frequently subjected to punishments like public flogging, the stocks, or even branding. These acts served dual purposes: they punished the individual while reinforcing communal values by making an example of the offender. The public nature of these punishments was critical to their effectiveness, relying on the collective participation of the community to shame the individual into compliance or exile.
In pre-digital societies, cancel culture also manifested through social ostracism and exile. In ancient Greece, the practice of ostracism allowed citizens to vote for the temporary banishment of individuals deemed dangerous to the state. This form of expulsion was not only punitive but also preventive, designed to maintain social cohesion and stability. Similarly, in Puritan New England, public shaming and exclusion were central to the enforcement of moral codes. The infamous scarlet letter, imposed on individuals guilty of adultery, symbolizes how ostracism was used to control behavior and preserve communal identity. These historical forms of cancel culture relied on the physical proximity of communities and the shared moral frameworks that bound them together. While the medium has shifted in the digital age, the underlying mechanisms of public accountability and collective punishment remain strikingly similar.
By understanding these historical precedents, it becomes clear that cancel culture is not a novel construct but rather a modern iteration of longstanding societal practices. The emergence of social media has expanded the reach and intensity of public shaming, turning once-localized acts into global events. However, the psychological dynamics — public humiliation, group reinforcement of norms, and the moral policing of behavior — are deeply embedded in human social behavior, echoing the traditions of past eras.
History of Public Shaming
Public shaming has been a prominent feature of human societies for centuries, evolving alongside cultural norms and mechanisms of social control. Historically, public shaming served as a visible and communal method of enforcing societal standards and deterring undesirable behavior. In ancient times, rituals of shaming were embedded within legal and religious systems. For example, in medieval Europe, offenders were subjected to punishments like being placed in the stocks or pillories, where they were exposed to public ridicule and even physical abuse. These punishments were often staged in town squares, turning them into spectacles of humiliation that reinforced communal values. By making the punishment highly visible, these acts of public shaming leveraged the social fear of exclusion and dishonor to maintain order and compliance within the community.
Religious institutions also played a significant role in formalizing public shaming. In Puritan societies, moral transgressions were met with severe and public consequences, such as excommunication or public penance. The infamous scarlet letter, as fictionalized in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, is rooted in the real practice of marking individuals with visible symbols of their sins. This public branding aimed to ostracize the offender while signaling to the community the consequences of deviating from prescribed norms. Similarly, confession rituals in various religious traditions, while intended for repentance, often carried elements of public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, further reinforcing communal judgment.
Public shaming was not always punitive; in some contexts, it was a form of social correction aimed at reintegration. In smaller, tightly-knit communities, shaming rituals often included opportunities for the offender to atone and regain their standing. For example, in many Indigenous cultures, practices of “calling out” an individual were often followed by ceremonies of reconciliation and reintegration into the group. These historical practices reveal a dual nature of public shaming: as a tool of exclusion and punishment, but also as a mechanism for reinforcing social cohesion.
While the tools and contexts have changed, the psychological underpinnings of public shaming remain consistent. It capitalizes on the human fear of social exclusion, leveraging humiliation to enforce conformity and protect communal values. In the digital age, social media platforms have amplified this practice, stripping it of the localized context and often the opportunity for reconciliation, transforming public shaming into a global and often permanent phenomenon.
Public shaming and social humiliation lie at the heart of cancel culture because they leverage our most deeply rooted social instincts. Humiliation, unlike related emotions such as shame or guilt, is particularly damaging because it hinges on a loss of status and dignity in the presence of others. Researchers Hartling and Luchetta (1999) have identified humiliation as a uniquely public experience, one that fractures not just an individual’s self-esteem but also their connection to the social groups that shape their identity. Social media amplifies this effect, transforming localized incidents of shaming into global spectacles. The digital nature of cancel culture ensures that such events are not only visible but often inescapable, magnifying their emotional and reputational impact.
A critical lens through which to analyze cancel culture is Social Identity Theory, developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979. This theory posits that individuals derive a significant portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. These groups — whether based on shared values, political beliefs, or cultural affiliations — become a source of pride and belonging, but they also generate boundaries that distinguish insiders from outsiders. In cancel culture, public shaming frequently serves to reinforce these boundaries by punishing individuals who violate group norms, thereby affirming the moral and ideological cohesion of the group. Understanding cancel culture requires exploring not only the motivations of those who participate but also the psychological needs that drive collective behavior in online and offline spaces.
Why do humans feel compelled to publicly punish others, often in ways that seem disproportionately severe? What does this reveal about the nature of identity, morality, and justice in a hyperconnected world? As we unravel the psychology behind cancel culture and public shaming, these questions challenge us to reflect on our own roles in perpetuating — or resisting — these practices. By examining the dynamics of social humiliation and identity, we can better understand how cancel culture reflects both the strengths and vulnerabilities of human behavior in an era dominated by digital interconnectedness.
The Evolution of Public Shaming
Public shaming has long been a societal tool for enforcing norms and maintaining order, with its roots deeply embedded in human history. In medieval and early modern Europe, public shaming was a formalized practice, often orchestrated by governing authorities or religious institutions. Tools such as stocks, pillories, and branding were used to publicly punish individuals who violated moral or legal codes. These punishments were not only intended to reprimand the individual but also to serve as a stark warning to others. For example, offenders placed in the stocks were confined in a public square, where community members could jeer, mock, or even physically assault them. The shame was communal, involving both the punished individual and the spectators who participated in reinforcing societal norms. These acts of public humiliation were visible and physical, making the consequences of wrongdoing both immediate and enduring.
The transition to digital platforms has revolutionized public shaming, amplifying its reach and consequences in ways unimaginable in historical contexts. Social media has transformed what were once localized and time-bound acts of shaming into global, enduring events. On platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok, public shaming can unfold in real time, often escalating within hours or even minutes. A single post or video can be shared, commented on, and re-shared, reaching millions of viewers across the world. This speed and scale far exceed historical practices, where the impact of shaming was largely confined to the physical community of the offender. Moreover, the digital nature of modern public shaming ensures that its effects are not only far-reaching but also permanent; digital records and viral content remain accessible long after the initial event.
The velocity of modern cancel culture magnifies its impact, creating what some scholars have termed “digital mob justice.” Unlike the slow, procedural nature of historical public shaming, which often involved a formal judgment process, digital shaming bypasses traditional structures of accountability. Instead, it relies on collective outrage and viral dissemination, leaving little room for due process or measured responses. While historical shaming often provided a pathway for atonement or reintegration, digital shaming is frequently devoid of such mechanisms. The permanence of online content means that individuals who are “canceled” may struggle to rebuild their reputations or move past the event, facing ongoing stigmatization long after the initial wave of outrage subsides.
In this evolution from physical stocks to digital platforms, public shaming has retained its psychological power while significantly increasing its reach and intensity. Modern cancel culture, fueled by social media, has shifted the dynamics of accountability and punishment, raising critical questions about fairness, proportionality, and the long-term consequences of public humiliation in a hyperconnected world.
The Psychology of Humiliation
Humiliation is a profoundly destabilizing emotional experience characterized by a loss of dignity or self-worth, often inflicted in the presence of others. Unlike shame, which typically involves internalized feelings of failure relative to personal standards or moral values, humiliation is externally imposed, arising from the perception that one’s worth has been degraded in the eyes of others. Lindner (2001) identifies humiliation as a complex emotional and social phenomenon that can result in lasting psychological effects, including feelings of powerlessness, social isolation, and identity fragmentation. The public nature of humiliation distinguishes it from other forms of emotional distress, as the awareness of an observing audience amplifies its intensity and enduring impact.
The psychological toll of public shaming is immense, particularly when it occurs in the highly visible and often irreversible forum of cancel culture. Research has shown that experiences of humiliation can lead to significant declines in mental health, including heightened anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation (Hartling & Luchetta, 1999). The damage to self-esteem is profound, as public shaming often challenges an individual’s core identity, calling into question their perceived moral character, social belonging, or professional competence. Behavioral responses to humiliation vary, but they frequently include withdrawal from social interactions, hypervigilance, or attempts at reparation that may not always be accepted by the broader public.
A stark example of the psychological effects of public shaming can be seen in the case of Monica Lewinsky, who became the subject of global ridicule in the late 1990s. Her personal life was exposed and criticized on a scale that was unprecedented at the time, leading to years of public humiliation and personal struggles. In later interviews, Lewinsky described the long-term impact on her mental health, including periods of severe depression and suicidal ideation, emphasizing how the public nature of her shaming intensified its effects. More recently, figures like Justine Sacco, whose ill-conceived tweet led to her being “canceled” while on a flight, illustrate the rapidity and intensity of digital shaming. Sacco reported feelings of alienation, fear, and despair following the incident, as her life was upended by an event that escalated in mere hours.
The role of anonymity and deindividuation in online spaces exacerbates the psychological impact of public shaming. Anonymity allows individuals to participate in acts of shaming without fear of direct consequences, reducing accountability for their actions. Deindividuation, a concept rooted in social psychology, occurs when individuals within a group lose their sense of personal identity and responsibility, leading to behaviors they might not engage in individually (Zimbardo, 1969). In the context of online shaming, these phenomena contribute to the virality and intensity of cancel culture. Participants in shaming often feel emboldened by the collective outrage of the group, enabling harsher judgments and more aggressive behaviors. This mob-like dynamic magnifies the emotional and reputational harm inflicted on the individual being shamed.
In the realm of cancel culture, the psychology of humiliation underscores a critical tension: the need for accountability versus the potential for disproportionate harm. While public shaming may succeed in drawing attention to wrongdoing or enforcing social norms, its psychological consequences raise important ethical and societal questions. The interplay of mental health, social dynamics, and the unique characteristics of digital spaces calls for a more nuanced understanding of how we address transgressions in an increasingly interconnected world.
The Role of Social Identity in Cancel Culture
The phenomenon of cancel culture is deeply intertwined with social identity, a foundational concept in social psychology. Social Identity Theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979), posits that individuals derive a significant portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. These groups provide a sense of belonging, self-esteem, and meaning. However, they also create boundaries between in-groups (those who belong) and out-groups (those who do not), fostering dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that are central to cancel culture. Understanding how these dynamics operate sheds light on the psychological forces that drive public shaming and its role in reinforcing social norms.
In-Group Versus Out-Group Dynamics
Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals are motivated to maintain a positive group identity, which often involves contrasting their in-group with perceived out-groups. This differentiation can lead to biases that favor the in-group while devaluing or marginalizing the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the context of cancel culture, this dynamic is evident in the collective condemnation of individuals or groups whose actions or beliefs deviate from in-group norms. Public shaming becomes a mechanism for delineating these boundaries, as the offender is cast into the out-group, reinforcing the moral and ideological unity of the in-group.
Research supports the idea that group alignment is a critical motivator for individuals to participate in cancel culture. Abrams and Hogg (1990) emphasize that group cohesion strengthens when members actively align with shared ideologies, particularly in response to perceived threats to group identity. Public acts of condemnation, such as calling out or boycotting, serve as displays of loyalty to the in-group and affirm the collective values that bind its members. In digital spaces, where group identities are often fluid and ideologically driven, these acts are amplified, with participants engaging in public shaming to reinforce their belonging and signal their commitment to group norms.
Reinforcing Group Norms Through Public Shaming
Public shaming plays a pivotal role in maintaining group cohesion by penalizing behavior that violates shared standards. Research by Ellemers et al. (2002) highlights the importance of group norm enforcement in sustaining collective identity. In cancel culture, shaming an individual for perceived transgressions serves as a visible reminder of what is acceptable within the group, thereby deterring others from similar actions. Social media platforms intensify this process, providing a stage for performative outrage and collective condemnation that strengthens in-group solidarity.
The viral nature of public shaming also ensures that the offender’s perceived wrongdoing is widely known, reinforcing the in-group’s moral superiority. This dynamic is particularly powerful in ideologically charged environments, where the perceived stakes of norm violations are high. By ostracizing those who deviate, the in-group not only upholds its values but also signals its moral legitimacy to external audiences, further entrenching its cohesion and authority.
The Cost of Dissent
The mechanisms that reinforce group identity through cancel culture also impose significant costs on dissenting voices. Individuals who question or challenge the in-group’s actions risk being labeled as traitors or sympathizers with the out-group. This fear of exclusion is a potent deterrent, discouraging members from defending those who are being shamed or expressing opinions that diverge from the group consensus. Research on conformity by Asch (1951) demonstrates the psychological pressure to align with group norms, even when such alignment conflicts with personal beliefs.
In the digital age, where cancel culture thrives, the cost of dissent is further magnified by the permanence and visibility of online interactions. Individuals who deviate from group ideologies often face the same public shaming tactics used against offenders, creating a chilling effect on open discourse. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “secondary canceling,” perpetuates a culture of silence and conformity, where fear of being ostracized overrides the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
The role of social identity in cancel culture underscores the deeply ingrained human need for belonging and validation. Through the lens of Social Identity Theory, public shaming emerges not only as a mechanism for punishing transgressions but also as a tool for reinforcing group cohesion and ideological alignment. However, the psychological costs of these dynamics, including the suppression of dissent and the perpetuation of fear, raise critical questions about the ethical implications of cancel culture. As we navigate these complex social phenomena, understanding the interplay between identity, group dynamics, and public shaming is essential for fostering more constructive and inclusive approaches to accountability.
Moral Outrage and Virtue Signaling
Moral outrage is a powerful emotional response to perceived violations of moral or ethical standards. Psychologically, it is driven by a combination of anger, disgust, and a desire to address injustice or wrongdoing (Batson et al., 2007). Moral outrage often arises when individuals witness behaviors that contradict their values or threaten social norms they consider essential. It serves a dual purpose: motivating corrective action and signaling one’s commitment to those values. In the context of cancel culture, moral outrage frequently manifests in public condemnation, where participants express their anger and disapproval of a perceived transgressor’s actions. While this can be a catalyst for necessary social change, it also carries the potential for performative behaviors, particularly when virtue signaling becomes a dominant force.
Virtue signaling refers to the act of expressing moral outrage or engaging in public displays of virtue, often for the purpose of enhancing one’s reputation or social standing rather than achieving genuine change. Studies in social psychology suggest that virtue signaling is motivated by the human need for social approval and status within one’s community (Jordan et al., 2020). In the context of public shaming, virtue signaling can take the form of performative outrage, where individuals emphasize their condemnation of an offender to align themselves with group values or signal their moral superiority. This performative aspect often overshadows the substantive issues at hand, shifting the focus from accountability or systemic reform to the individual’s display of virtue.
Cancel culture provides a fertile ground for virtue signaling, as the digital nature of modern interactions offers a global audience and immediate social rewards. Platforms like Twitter and Instagram amplify the visibility of virtue signaling behaviors, where public displays of outrage are met with likes, shares, and positive reinforcement from others in the in-group. These social rewards create a feedback loop, encouraging individuals to participate in public shaming not solely out of genuine moral concern but also to gain social capital. As Crockett (2017) notes, digital platforms are uniquely suited to amplify moral outrage, incentivizing behaviors that may be more about signaling virtue than effecting meaningful change.
The performative nature of some cancel culture actions raises important ethical considerations. While public shaming often stems from genuine concern about injustice, the prevalence of virtue signaling can dilute its impact, transforming what could be constructive dialogue into performative displays. For instance, high-profile cancellations often garner widespread attention, but the focus may shift from the systemic issues they highlight to the individual being shamed or the participants’ expressions of outrage. This can lead to superficial or short-lived engagement with critical issues, as the primary goal becomes maintaining one’s social standing rather than fostering lasting reform.
The psychological drivers of moral outrage and the social rewards of virtue signaling highlight a central tension within cancel culture. While outrage can serve as a powerful motivator for accountability, its performative aspects often undermine the sincerity and effectiveness of public shaming. By recognizing these dynamics, we can better understand the complexities of cancel culture and the ways in which it reflects broader human tendencies toward social approval, conformity, and moral signaling.
The Bystander Effect in Cancel Culture
The bystander effect, a well-documented phenomenon in social psychology, occurs when individuals fail to intervene in a crisis or harmful situation because they assume others will take action. Originally studied in physical, face-to-face contexts, such as emergencies (Darley & Latané, 1968), this concept has found a powerful and nuanced expression in digital spaces, particularly in the dynamics of cancel culture. The anonymity and vastness of online platforms create conditions that both amplify the bystander effect and alter its traditional manifestations, leading to silence or complicity in public shaming.
In the context of cancel culture, the bystander effect often results in individuals refraining from defending those who are targeted by public shaming, even when they privately disagree with the harshness or validity of the condemnation. The sheer number of participants in digital spaces diffuses the sense of personal responsibility, with each observer assuming that someone else will speak up or intervene. This diffusion is further compounded by fear of backlash: individuals recognize the risk of being targeted themselves for defending an offender or challenging the prevailing narrative. This dynamic transforms online shaming into a self-perpetuating cycle, where silence becomes complicity, reinforcing the group’s actions and discouraging dissent.
Conversely, the bystander effect in digital spaces can also manifest in the amplification of shaming rather than its interruption. This occurs because digital platforms incentivize participation through mechanisms like likes, shares, and retweets, which reward engagement with social validation. Research on deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969) suggests that the anonymity and distance afforded by online interactions reduce individuals’ sense of personal accountability, making them more likely to join in collective condemnation without considering the broader consequences. This results in a form of “digital mob behavior,” where participation in shaming becomes less about individual conviction and more about aligning with the perceived majority.
The reluctance to seek restorative justice in cancel culture reflects another facet of the bystander effect in digital spaces. Unlike traditional social contexts, where individuals may have opportunities for face-to-face dialogue and reconciliation, the impersonal and instantaneous nature of online platforms often precludes meaningful attempts at resolution. The visibility of public shaming further complicates this dynamic: any effort to seek restorative justice or defend the individual being shamed is subject to public scrutiny and potential misinterpretation. For example, individuals attempting to mediate may be accused of excusing harmful behavior or undermining the collective efforts of the group, further deterring constructive interventions.
Ultimately, the bystander effect in cancel culture illustrates the challenges of fostering accountability and justice in digital spaces. While the instinct to remain silent or align with the majority is deeply rooted in human psychology, these behaviors often perpetuate the very harm they seek to address. By understanding the psychological and structural barriers to intervention, we can begin to explore strategies for mitigating the bystander effect and promoting more ethical and restorative approaches to addressing transgressions online.
Psychological Impacts on the Canceled
The psychological toll of being canceled is profound, often leaving individuals grappling with intense emotional and social repercussions. Cancellation typically involves public shaming on a scale that can lead to widespread humiliation, alienation, and loss of reputation. For those targeted, the experience frequently undermines their mental health, self-esteem, and sense of identity. Research on the effects of public humiliation highlights its capacity to evoke severe emotional distress, including anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress symptoms (Hartling & Luchetta, 1999). The cancellation process also disrupts social functioning, as those who are ostracized may struggle to maintain personal relationships, professional opportunities, and a sense of belonging within their communities.
The social nature of being canceled exacerbates its psychological impact. Unlike private criticism or conflict, public shaming through cancel culture often involves an audience of thousands or even millions, many of whom may actively participate in the condemnation. This dynamic compounds the feelings of powerlessness and vulnerability that canceled individuals experience. The digital permanence of cancellation — where incriminating content or commentary can remain accessible indefinitely — creates a lingering threat to their identity and future opportunities. Studies on cyberbullying, which shares similar mechanisms, suggest that victims of sustained online attacks face heightened risks of social withdrawal, loneliness, and suicidal ideation (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Despite these challenges, some individuals manage to navigate the aftermath of cancellation through strategies of narrative rebuilding and resilience. Narrative rebuilding involves reshaping the public perception of one’s identity by addressing the incident, expressing accountability, or reframing the story in a way that resonates with broader social values. Monica Lewinsky, for example, has become a prominent voice on the dangers of public shaming after enduring one of the most infamous instances of media-driven humiliation in modern history. By openly discussing her experiences and advocating for digital empathy and anti-bullying efforts, she has reclaimed her narrative and transformed her identity from victim to advocate.
Resilience, another key coping mechanism, allows individuals to adapt to adversity and rebuild their lives in the face of rejection and hostility. While resilience is influenced by personal traits like optimism and emotional regulation (Bonanno, 2004), external factors such as supportive relationships and professional opportunities also play a critical role. Comedian Kevin Hart offers a contemporary example of resilience after cancellation. Following public backlash over resurfaced tweets, Hart faced criticism and professional consequences, including losing the opportunity to host the Oscars. By publicly acknowledging his past mistakes, engaging in meaningful dialogue, and continuing to focus on his career, Hart gradually rebuilt his reputation and regained public support.
However, not all individuals subjected to cancellation are able to recover so publicly or effectively. The uneven application of cancel culture — where some face irrevocable consequences while others eventually regain favor — raises important questions about fairness and the mechanisms by which society offers or withholds redemption. Addressing these disparities requires examining the broader social systems that enable cancellation and fostering a culture that prioritizes restorative justice over retribution. For those canceled, resilience and narrative rebuilding remain crucial tools, but the collective response to their transgressions ultimately shapes whether they can reintegrate into society or remain permanently ostracized.
The Role of Forgiveness and Restorative Justice
Forgiveness and reconciliation present meaningful alternatives to the punitive nature of cancel culture. While cancel culture often centers on public shaming and ostracism, forgiveness offers a pathway to healing for both the accused and the aggrieved. Forgiveness does not excuse wrongdoing; rather, it allows individuals to release resentment and move toward reconciliation. Psychological research highlights the benefits of forgiveness, both for individuals and for society. Worthington et al. (2005) found that forgiving others is associated with reduced stress, improved mental health, and stronger interpersonal relationships. By contrast, prolonged cycles of anger and retaliation, such as those perpetuated by cancel culture, often lead to deeper divisions and emotional exhaustion for all parties involved.
Restorative justice, an alternative approach to addressing harm, emphasizes repairing relationships and fostering accountability through dialogue rather than punishment. Rooted in principles of empathy and mutual understanding, restorative justice seeks to involve both the harmed and the offender in a process of acknowledgment, atonement, and reintegration. Psychological studies have demonstrated that restorative justice practices are effective in reducing recidivism and promoting emotional healing. A meta-analysis by Latimer et al. (2005) revealed that participants in restorative justice programs reported higher levels of satisfaction and perceived fairness compared to those involved in traditional punitive systems. In the context of cancel culture, adopting restorative practices could mitigate the long-term consequences of public shaming while still addressing societal concerns about accountability.
Fostering forgiveness and restorative justice requires deliberate steps to shift cultural norms and encourage empathy over division. First, creating spaces for dialogue is essential. Online platforms, which often facilitate one-sided condemnation, could be adapted to include mechanisms for structured discussions and mediated conversations. Initiatives such as apology forums or restorative panels — where individuals have the opportunity to express accountability and receive feedback — could provide constructive alternatives to public shaming.
Second, cultivating empathy is vital for reducing the impulsive nature of cancel culture. Empathy training programs, often used in educational and organizational settings, can help individuals recognize the humanity and complexity of others, even when they disagree with their actions. These interventions have been shown to increase prosocial behaviors and reduce punitive attitudes (Klimecki et al., 2013). By fostering greater understanding, individuals may be more inclined to seek reconciliation rather than perpetuate cycles of outrage.
Finally, promoting a culture of proportionality and redemption is critical. While some transgressions warrant severe consequences, others are better addressed through opportunities for growth and learning. Encouraging the acknowledgment of mistakes, paired with meaningful efforts to make amends, can allow individuals to reintegrate into society without permanent stigmatization. Public figures and organizations have a unique role to play in modeling these behaviors, demonstrating that accountability and forgiveness can coexist.
Ultimately, forgiveness and restorative justice represent a more constructive and compassionate response to societal transgressions. While cancel culture often reinforces division and alienation, these approaches prioritize healing, understanding, and the restoration of trust. By embracing these principles, society can move toward a framework that addresses harm while recognizing the potential for growth and redemption in all individuals.
Final Thoughts
Public shaming and cancel culture are deeply intertwined with fundamental aspects of human psychology. Humiliation, a potent emotional experience, emerges as the central mechanism by which cancel culture operates, leveraging the fear of social exclusion to enforce norms and punish transgressions. Through the lens of Social Identity Theory, we see how group dynamics shape these phenomena, reinforcing in-group cohesion while marginalizing dissent and out-group perspectives. The performative nature of moral outrage and virtue signaling, amplified by digital platforms, highlights both the human desire for validation and the dangers of a culture that prioritizes punishment over understanding. At its core, cancel culture reflects the complex interplay between accountability, identity, and the need for belonging in a hyperconnected world.
Yet, the rise of cancel culture also raises critical questions about the kind of society we want to build. It reveals a collective tendency to simplify nuanced situations into binary judgments, often at the expense of compassion and dialogue. While the desire to hold individuals accountable for harmful actions is legitimate, the psychological and societal costs of public shaming — both for those targeted and for the broader community — cannot be ignored. Cancel culture, in its current form, risks perpetuating cycles of outrage and alienation, undermining the potential for meaningful accountability and reconciliation.
As we navigate these challenges, it is imperative to consider the impact of our actions, both online and offline. Public shaming has the power to harm not just individuals but also the fabric of society, fostering division rather than understanding. By prioritizing empathy, forgiveness, and restorative justice, we can create pathways for growth and healing that move beyond the binary logic of cancellation. This requires conscious effort: pausing before engaging in public condemnation, seeking dialogue over division, and embracing the possibility of redemption.
Ultimately, cancel culture is a mirror reflecting the strengths and vulnerabilities of human behavior. It reminds us of our capacity for moral judgment and collective action, but also of the harm we can inflict when those instincts go unchecked. As individuals and as a society, we have the opportunity to reimagine accountability — not as a tool for retribution, but as a means to foster understanding, repair relationships, and build a more compassionate world. By doing so, we honor the shared humanity that connects us all.
Bibliography
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Springer-Verlag.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, Leadership, and Men, 177–190.
Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L. A., Stocks, E. L., Fleming, D. A., Marzette, C. M., … & Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1272–1285.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.
Hartling, L. M., & Luchetta, T. (1999). Humiliation: Assessing the impact of derision, degradation, and debasement. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19(4), 259–278.
Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Signaling virtue: Public outrage and punishment in social dilemmas. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–8.
Klimecki, O. M., Mayer, S. V., Jusyte, A., Scheeff, J., & Schönenberg, M. (2013). Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 31961.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.
Lindner, E. G. (2001). Humiliation as the source of terrorism: A new paradigm. Peace Research, 33(2), 59–68.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2005). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgiveness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(4), 291–302.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.
Recommended Reading
Hawthorne, N. (1850). The Scarlet Letter. A classic exploration of public shaming and its societal implications.
Lewinsky, M. (2015). The Price of Shame. TED Talk discussing her experiences and the need for digital empathy.
Ronson, J. (2015). So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. An insightful analysis of the modern dynamics of public humiliation and cancel culture.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Explores the moral underpinnings of social and political divisions.
Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. A sociological perspective on the cultural shifts contributing to cancel culture.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. Examines the psychological effects of digital life on younger generations.
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. A nuanced look at the impact of social media on youth behaviors and identity formation.
Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beyond fear and anger: Emotions in social conflicts. Emotion Review, 1(3), 233–239. Provides theoretical insights into the role of emotions like outrage in social behavior.