Social media platforms have become a mainstay of our modern world and have fundamentally changed the way we connect with each other. Humans are now capable of acquiring information regarding other people at an unprecedented speed and reach, as well as impacting other individuals from anywhere in the world. As a result, the concept of “Cancel Culture” has emerged as a topic of interest during the past decade, with previous research detailing various ways in which it may impact individuals and the public at large. Most research on this topic focuses on specific cancelling episodes or the broader concept in its entirety, with most works using qualitative or cross-sectional quantitative methodologies. Consequently, experimental data on the topic is limited, given the nature of the phenomenon, and the existing literature often focuses on cancelling proclivity under varying contextual differences. As such, little is known about the perceptions of being cancelled, as well as the impact underlying innate pressures pertaining to this topic may have on said perceptions and behavior related to Cancel Culture. Particularly, although past research would suggest an unrealistic optimistic bias pertaining to being the target of a cancellation, there’s a lack of quantitative data to support this claim. As such, we conducted two experimental studies employing 2x2 designs, using a vignette methodology. Vignettes were subjected to a pilot study before broader use. Pressure for a Perfect Conduct, the previously proposed conceptual representation of the pressure individuals may experience to conduct themselves perfectly under the threat of being canceled, was included as a covariate. This construct was measured using a previously developed and validated instrument. Study 1 delved into the effects of the person being cancelled (Reader vs Third-Party) and speed of cancellation (Immediate vs Delayed) on how these scenarios were perceived (realism, procedural justice, and Cancel Culture accuracy). We employed adapted versions of validated instruments for both realism and procedural justice, while using novel questions to assess Cancel Culture accuracy. Study 2 tackled the impact of agreeing with a cancelled opinion (Yes vs No) and anonymity when posting (Yes vs No) on both supporting and cancelling behaviors. Results for Study 1 (N = 221, Mean Age= 23.0, 83.7% women) indicate that realism perceptions are significantly impacted by the target of the cancellation (F = 8.07, p = .005) and pressure for a perfect conduct (F = 11.02, p = .001), but not by the speed of the cancellation (F = 0.28, p = .600). Cancel Culture accuracy, on the other hand, are significantly impacted by the speed of the cancellation (F = 6.26, p = .013) and pressure for a perfect conduct (F = 9.34, p = .003), but not by the target of the cancellation (F = 0.23, p = .637). Finally, procedural justice perceptions are significantly impacted by the cancellation’s target (F = 4.32, p = .039), but not by the speed of the cancellation (F = 2.52, p = .114) or pressure for a perfect conduct (F = 0.04, p = .839). Data for Study 2 is being collected at the time of submission, going through a second anonymous data collection process. Our data support the claim that there is an unrealistic optimism pertaining to cancelling situations, and that higher levels of pressure for a perfect conduct are associated with higher reported values of realism, allowing these individuals to more correctly assess the world around them. Our results shed light on an underexplored portion of the Cancel Culture phenomenon, and call for further study of the individual and contextual variables at play in cancelling behaviour and avoidance.

--

cancel culture,social media,pressure for a perfect conduct,justice perceptions,experimental design,vignette methodology