A “cancellation” happens when the public calls out a brand with power or influence for a perceived moral transgression in an attempt to damage their reputation, reduce their power, and encourage the public withdraw their support of the brand.

Consider for example Anheuser-Busch who experienced significant backlash following paid promotions between Bud Light and trans-actress Dylan Mulvaney on social media. The criticism was broad, including public figures such as Donald Trump, Caitlyn Jenner, and Kid Rock speaking out. The company lost nearly $5 billion in market cap in less than two weeks. In effect, they were “cancelled.”

Although debate remains on whether the punishment fits the “crime” in such situations, losses experienced by cancelled individuals and brands can be devastating. And our hyper connected culture (facilitated by social media, hashtags, algorithms, etc.) have enabled this phenomenon.

In this new study we sought to understand who is most likely to “cancel”. We found that political identity centrality–the extent to which one's political identity (e.g., as a "liberal" or a "conservative") is central to their self-concept–increases the likelihood that they will engage in cancelling behaviours. Thus, individuals whose identity is tightly tied to their political beliefs are more likely to cancel, regardless of what those beliefs actually are.

This understanding may assist brands in recovering from being “cancelled” (e.g. individuals with weaker political identities might have greater potential for recovery as their reactions should be less severe).

We further hope that this work will contribute to social marketing and policies that support improved public discourse and reduced political polarization. As political identity centrality is not ideology-specific some implications of this work could include for instance focusing on common ground between political beliefs which has been found to reduce polarization and in turn the damaging effects of cancel culture.