Power of Cancel Culture and 3 Ideal Alternatives to It

Introduction

Imagine waking up to thousands of angry messages because of something you posted online—maybe a joke, maybe a misstep. By lunchtime, you’ve lost your job. By dinner, you’re trending—for all the wrong reasons.

Welcome to cancel culture: the modern form of social punishment that plays out in real time across social media. Whether it’s celebrities, CEOs, or ordinary users, one slip-up can lead to public shaming, boycotts, and career-ending consequences.

But cancel culture isn’t new. It’s just a viral remix of something humans have always done—morally police each other. Why are we so quick to cancel? Why does it feel so good? And what does psychology say about this digital pitchfork phenomenon?

Read More- Main Character Syndrome

What Is Cancel Culture?

“Cancel culture” refers to the mass withdrawal of support from individuals (or companies) after they are perceived to have violated moral, ethical, or social norms often online.

• It includes public shaming, boycotts, and social ostracism.
• Targets may face loss of reputation, career, or opportunities.
• It operates fast, decentralized, and often without formal due process.

In essence, it’s a crowdsourced social sanction system. The internet just makes it louder.

The Psychology Behind Moral Outrage

Humans are wired for moral judgment. We evolved in tight-knit tribes where enforcing group norms was key to survival.

• Disgust, anger, and contempt are emotional responses that help us detect and respond to norm violations (Rozin et al., 1999).
• These emotions are contagious especially on social media (Brady et al., 2017).

People often feel good when expressing outrage. It signals loyalty to the group, boosts self-image, and gains social clout—what psychologists call “virtue signaling” (Jordan et al., 2016).

“Moral outrage serves both an emotional and social function—it feels righteous and makes us look righteous.” – Dr. Molly Crockett, Yale University

Groupthink Goes Digital

Cancel culture amplifies groupthink a phenomenon where people conform to group consensus without critical evaluation.

On platforms like Twitter, where speed and simplicity reign, people often react before verifying facts. Algorithms reward outrage and simplicity, not nuance. A 2020 study (Wojcik et al.) showed that moral-emotional language (e.g., “disgusting”, “shameful”) leads to higher retweet rates especially when aimed at out-groups.

This creates echo chambers, where the most extreme voices dominate, and dissenters fear being “canceled” themselves.

Cancel Culture as Social Punishment

From a psychological lens, canceling is a form of punitive behavior rooted in evolutionary mechanisms.

In small communities, ostracism was a survival tool: exclude the norm-breaker to protect the group. Public punishment deters others from similar behavior like a virtual scarlet letter.

But there’s a catch: unlike in tribal societies, online mobs aren’t bound by proximity or accountability. Studies show that social rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Being “canceled” is not just symbolic—it hurts.

And the pain isn’t just for the canceled. Bystanders experience stress, uncertainty, and self-censorship—worried they could be next.

The Nuance Trap

One of cancel culture’s biggest flaws? Lack of nuance. A decade-old tweet is treated the same as a real-time hate crime. There’s little room for context, growth, or apology.

• Black-and-white thinking (a cognitive distortion) thrives in cancel culture. It sees people as “good” or “bad”, with no spectrum in between (Beck, 1976).
• Once labeled, the person becomes a symbol—not a complex human being.

This is especially dangerous for young people still forming identities. Studies show that adolescents have a heightened sensitivity to peer evaluation and public judgment (Somerville, 2013).

When Calling Out Becomes Calling Off

There’s a fine line between accountability and performative punishment. Cancel culture can devolve into public theater, where the goal shifts from justice to vengeance or virality.

The Psychology of Shame

• Shame is a powerful social emotion meant to regulate behavior but public shaming often backfires.
• Research shows that shamed individuals are more likely to withdraw, become defensive, or lash out (Tangney & Dearing, 2002)—not necessarily grow.

In many cases, canceling someone ends the conversation before it begins.

The Bystander Effect Reversed

Interestingly, cancel culture flips the classic bystander effect. Instead of no one helping, everyone piles on creating a sense of moral urgency.

But just like in real emergencies, intensity doesn’t equal effectiveness.

• Studies show that collective outrage often leads to short-lived movements, where outrage burns bright but fades fast (Lee-Won et al., 2022).
• And the mental health cost for both the canceled and the cancelers? Exhaustion, anxiety, and a fragile sense of safety.

Can Cancel Culture Do Good?

Absolutely when used responsibly, social accountability has led to real change.

• Movements like #MeToo or anti-racism campaigns used digital tools to hold powerful individuals accountable.
• In many cases, cancellation helped amplify marginalized voices, especially where formal justice systems failed.

But healthy accountability requires due process, empathy, and a willingness to distinguish between mistakes and malice.

Alternatives to Canceling

So what’s the solution? Psychologists suggest moving from punitive to restorative approaches.

Better Alternatives

1. Call-in culture: Instead of public shaming, invite people into private or thoughtful conversations (Ahmed, 2020).
2. Restorative justice: Focus on harm repair, community dialogue, and healing—not humiliation (Zehr, 2002).
3. Accountability with compassion: Allow room for learning, apology, and change.

These approaches align more closely with how people actually grow—through feedback, not fear.

Conclusion

Cancel culture isn’t just about others—it reflects how we as individuals and societies handle disagreement, morality, and imperfection. It shows our desire for justice, but also our addiction to outrage.

The next time you feel the impulse to pile on, pause. Ask yourself:

• Am I seeking justice or validation?
• Do I know the full story?
• Can this be a teachable moment instead?

Human beings are messy, growing, and flawed. If we really want change, maybe what we need isn’t to cancel—but to connect, challenge, and converse.

References

Ahmed, M. (2020). We Will Not Cancel Us: And Other Dreams of Transformative Justice. AK Press.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moral content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.

Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature, 530(7591), 473–476.

Lee-Won, R. J., Shim, M., Park, S. G., & Kim, S. (2022). Call-out and cancel culture in social media: A systematic review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(5), 244–262.

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574–586.

Somerville, L. H. (2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.

Wojcik, S. P., Messing, S., Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 771–777.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.