Selected Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes on Cancel Culture: Reflections on Public Opinion, Attribution Theory, Compassionate Education, and Restorative Justice

Selected Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes on Cancel Culture: Reflections on Public Opinion, Attribution Theory, Compassionate Education, and Restorative Justice

Brian Bantugan, Cherilyn Abayon, Nicole Baylon, Grant Hilario, Natasia Roquim, and Lee Anne Uriarte

St. Paul University Manila, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0025

Received: 09 January 2025; Accepted: 13 January 2025; Published: 11 February 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explored college students’ perceptions of cancel culture, its normalization on social media, and criteria for a better approach. It aimed to identify positive aspects for responsible use and develop initiatives for ethical engagement. Using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted virtually via Zoom, the research involved 10 college students from various institutions in Metro Manila, ensuring diverse viewpoints. Thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke’s six-step process was employed, supported by real cancel culture cases to enrich discussions. Participants viewed cancel culture as flawed for accountability, preferring education over condemnation. While it can promote social justice, it often normalizes bullying and stifles open discourse, driven by a desire for quick justice and peer pressure. They advocated for dialogue and personal growth instead of punitive measures, stressing the importance of context and mitigating circumstances. Cancel culture should be a last resort, applied with a nuanced approach considering the severity of offenses and opportunities for reform. Though it raises awareness and addresses social issues, responsible use should prioritize education and restorative justice. Cancel culture influences societal norms and accountability perceptions by setting behavior standards, often focusing on internal attributions and character flaws, leading to harsh judgments. In contrast, restorative justice emphasizes empathy, understanding, and reconciliation over punitive measures, promoting meaningful dialogue and collective responsibility, essential for building supportive communities.

Keywords: Cancel Culture, Restorative Justice, Compassionate Education, Public Opinion, Youth

INTRODUCTION

The digital age has transformed social interaction, with social media platforms becoming central to online engagement (Velasco, 2020). These platforms enable self-expression, community building, and social movement mobilization. Social media platforms are the primary arena for cancel culture, amplifying its reach and impact. The speed and scale of digital communication enable rapid mobilization but often lack mechanisms for accountability or reconciliation (Marwick, 2020). Furthermore, the algorithms of social media platforms can exacerbate polarization, as they prioritize content that generates engagement, including outrage and conflict (Tufekci, 2018).

Cancel Culture in the Digital Age

Cancel culture in the digital age raises concerns about due process and the presumption of innocence, as individuals can face public condemnation and professional repercussions without a fair assessment of the accusations. This undermines the principles of fairness and justice essential to a functioning legal system and ethical society. However, cancel culture also holds potential as a tool for promoting social justice by holding individuals accountable for harmful actions (Jusay et al., 2022). Studies show that cancel culture can lead to severe consequences, including harassment and suicidal thoughts, particularly for celebrities and public figures (Infante et al., 2022). Despite its negative aspects, some view cancel culture as a way to advocate for social justice when other options seem unavailable, seeing it as a pathway for positive change by holding people accountable without defining their entire life by a single mistake (Wychunas, 2021). Understanding the nuanced perceptions of cancel culture is crucial for comprehending its impact on sociocultural dynamics and fostering a more informed and tolerant online environment to mitigate its potential harms.

Cancel culture, defined as public shaming and ostracism for perceived offenses, has become a notable phenomenon within this digital landscape (Velasco, 2020). Cancel culture is a contemporary phenomenon often defined as the practice of withdrawing support for public figures, organizations, or individuals who have expressed or engaged in behavior perceived as offensive or harmful. It embodies a blend of social justice activism, accountability, and public discourse. However, its nuances reveal complexities that warrant further exploration. While often criticized for creating hostile environments and leading to self-censorship (Vallete, 2021; Roos, 2020), cancel culture can also hold individuals and institutions accountable, promoting social justice and equity (Jusay et al., 2022), especially in cases where legal or institutional mechanisms fail to address injustices (Ng, 2020). For marginalized communities, cancel culture provides a platform to amplify their voices and highlight systemic issues. However, critics argue that cancel culture can devolve into mob mentality, where online shaming and harassment overshadow constructive dialogue (Clark, 2020). This tension between accountability and overreach underscores the need for measured approaches to public critique.

Power Dynamics in Cancel Culture

Another significant nuance is the interplay of power dynamics. Cancel culture often emerges as a response to perceived abuses of power, yet it also reveals how power is redistributed in digital spaces. Public figures with significant platforms may face backlash disproportionate to their actions, while lesser-known individuals may experience devastating personal consequences (Nguyen, 2021). This dynamic complicates the ethics of cancel culture and raises questions about the fairness of its outcomes.

Cultural and Generational Perspectives

Cancel culture is perceived differently across cultural and generational lines. Younger generations often view it as a necessary tool for social change, while older generations may see it as an erosion of free speech and due process (Williams, 2021). However, there is a significant gap in understanding young adults’ perceptions of cancel culture, despite their high social media activity and formative developmental stages (Statista, 2022). Additionally, cultural contexts influence the thresholds for cancellation, as norms and values vary significantly across societies (Chen, 2022). These differences illustrate that cancel culture is not a monolithic concept but rather a reflection of broader societal debates.

Pathways to Reconciliation

While cancel culture often focuses on punishment, some scholars advocate for integrating restorative justice principles. By fostering dialogue and understanding, restorative approaches could address harm while promoting growth and accountability (Drexler-Dreis, 2021). Such pathways highlight the potential for cancel culture to evolve into a more constructive and inclusive practice.

Cancel culture research reveals several key gaps in the literature. These include a lack of cross-cultural perspectives, with most studies focusing on Western contexts (Baek et al., 2021), and a shortage of longitudinal research examining its long-term effects (Ng, 2020). There is also limited understanding of how cancel culture impacts marginalized groups (Clark, 2020), as well as the legal and ethical considerations involved (Heine et al.,2021). More research is needed on the psychological impact of canceling (Martinez & Stewart, 2021), the role of social media platforms and algorithms (Ng, 2020), and the broader political and economic implications (Greene, 2021). Additionally, inconsistent definitions of cancel culture highlight the need for clearer theoretical frameworks to differentiate it from similar concepts like accountability culture and online shaming (Baek et al., 2021).

This research aimed to fill this gap by investigating non-Western college students’ perceptions of cancel culture, in response to the gap Baek et al (2021) identified, and its normalization on social media platforms. By examining both its negative and positive aspects, the study sought to identify strategies for responsible engagement to mitigate negative consequences and enhance positive impacts. Ultimately, this research aimed to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of cancel culture’s implications for young people in the digital age, a gap Ng (2020) presented, offering insights to navigate it more ethically, as suggested by Heine et al. (2021) in the absence of laws more informed by research. This study’s ethical trajectory emerging from young adults, particularly the emergent more humane and less judgmental discourses that arise from seeing its positive and negative implications open up a fresh perspective that may not be as theoretically informed as academic discussions but are relevant, nonetheless, since they come from those who are deeply embedded in social media where cancel culture proliferates.

Impacts of Cancel Culture

Cancel culture has long-term impacts, affecting individuals’ reputations, careers, and social relationships, creating a culture of fear and mistrust (Palomares et al., 2022). It has held public figures accountable, as seen in the Harvey Weinstein case, which sparked the #MeToo movement, empowering victims and highlighting sexual harassment issues (Adrian et al., 2021). However, cancel culture also spreads misinformation and fosters toxic online behavior due to the limitations of social media and anonymity, leading to severe consequences, including harassment and mental health issues (Martinez, 2021; Infante et al., 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified this trend, with increased online activity leading to cases like that of Cat Arambulo-Antonio in the Philippines (Velasco, 2020). Cancel culture can push for necessary societal changes and initiate critical conversations, but it also raises ethical questions about fairness and the proportionality of its consequences (De La Salle University’s Social Development Research Center, 2022). It emphasizes the power dynamics on platforms like Twitter, where public support determines individuals’ social capital and accountability (Haskell, 2021). Despite its controversies, cancel culture can foster positive change by addressing issues like racism and providing a voice to marginalized communities (Averion et al., 2021; D. Clark, 2020).

Perceptions and Attitudes on Cancel Culture

Nearly half of Americans view cancel culture as a means to educate and prompt learning from mistakes, while others see it as unfair punishment that disregards context and intent, raising questions about its productivity and necessity (Vogels et al., 2022). Some argue cancel culture empowers individuals to challenge structural inequalities and hold others accountable (Rom & Mitchell, 2021; Dudenhoefer, 2020; Marsh, 2022). However, its complexity involves online humiliation and distorted accountability, with marginalized voices often facing intimidation (Burmah, 2021). While cancel culture can prompt inclusivity and societal shifts, as seen with corporate rebranding efforts (Morgan, 2021), it also creates fear, self-censorship, and hampers free speech, leading to anxiety and severe psychological tolls (De La Salle University’s Social Development Research Center, 2022). Some studies suggest it can empower marginalized groups, yet further research is needed (Traversa et al., 2023). Teacher education programs could help address its negative effects by promoting restorative justice (Zembylas, 2023). The rise of social media amplifies this phenomenon, impacting both individuals and organizations (Infante et al., 2023).

Cancel Culture and Public Opinion

Cancel culture exerts a significant influence on public opinion by shaping perceptions of individuals, companies, and public figures through social media-driven collective action. It typically involves widespread condemnation and ostracization of individuals or entities perceived to have engaged in offensive behavior or holding controversial views (Infante et al., 2023). This phenomenon can sway public opinion in several ways.

Firstly, cancel culture amplifies the visibility of controversies and negative perceptions. Social media platforms serve as catalysts for rapid dissemination of information and opinions, leading to heightened awareness and discussions among the public (Palomares et al., 2021). For instance, a controversial statement or action by a public figure can quickly spark widespread condemnation and calls for accountability, which can influence how the public perceives that individual or issue.

Secondly, cancel culture can lead to polarization within society. When a controversy erupts, it often divides public opinion into supporters and critics of the canceled entity. This polarization is evident in debates on social media platforms where individuals express strong opinions either supporting or condemning the actions that led to the cancellation (Jusay et al., 2022). This polarization can influence public discourse and contribute to the formation of echo chambers where like-minded individuals reinforce their beliefs and opinions.

Moreover, cancel culture impacts reputations and credibility. Individuals or organizations subjected to cancellation may experience reputational damage, loss of credibility, and even economic consequences due to boycotts or reduced support. The severity of these consequences can vary depending on the nature and scale of the controversy, as well as the responses of the canceled party.

As such, cancel culture influences public opinion by amplifying controversies, fostering polarization, and impacting reputations (Infante et al., 2023; Palomares et al., 2021; Jusay et al., 2022). Its influence is predominantly driven by the rapid dissemination of information and opinions on social media platforms, which shape how individuals and issues are perceived in the public sphere.

Cancel Culture and Youth Culture

Cancel culture exerts profound influence on youth culture by shaping digital interactions, identity formation, and social justice advocacy. It thrives on social media platforms like Twitter and TikTok, where visibility and peer validation drive its dynamics (Statista, 2023; Vogels et al., 2022). This phenomenon impacts how young people express opinions, navigate societal norms, and engage in online discourse, often fostering a climate of conformity and self-censorship to avoid backlash (Marsh, 2022; Traversa et al., 2023). Cancel culture intersects with youth activism, prompting advocacy for social justice causes while challenging traditional power structures (Waani & Wempi, 2021; Zembylas, 2023). However, its prevalence also raises concerns about mental health repercussions, as fear of public condemnation can contribute to anxiety and stress among adolescents (Infante et al., 2023). Educators and parents play pivotal roles in promoting media literacy and fostering critical thinking to help young individuals navigate cancel culture’s complexities (Cherry, 2023; Malle & Korman, 2013). As youth culture evolves, ongoing discourse on the ethical dimensions and psychological impacts of cancel culture remains crucial for cultivating inclusive and respectful digital environments (Norris, 2021; Rom & Mitchell, 2021).

Heider’s Attribution Theory         

Fritz Heider’s (1958) Attribution Theory posited that individuals observed others’ behaviors and formed beliefs about their causes, categorizing these justifications into internal attributions (personal attributes) and external attributions (external factors). This theory was crucial in shaping subjective perceptions of the world, offering a framework for understanding how people interpreted and explained the behavior of others, thus shedding light on the complexities of human intellect and social interaction.

Attribution theory intersects with cancel culture in several key ways within current literature. Cancel culture often involves public judgments and attributions of blame or responsibility for perceived wrongdoing. These attributions can be influenced by factors such as intent, social identity, and the severity of the action (Martinez & Stewart, 2021). In cancel culture, people often engage in dispositional attributions, where they attribute the individual’s actions to their character or values, rather than considering situational factors (Ng, 2020). This tendency can intensify public condemnation and the persistence of the canceling process.

Additionally, research has shown that the attribution of moral responsibility in cancel culture can be shaped by group membership and power dynamics, with individuals from marginalized groups more likely to experience harsher attributions and consequences (Clark, 2020). On the other hand, situational attributions—where blame is placed on external circumstances—can sometimes lead to more lenient responses, but this is less common in online environments where rapid judgment prevails. Attribution theory, thus, provides a useful lens for understanding how and why certain individuals are canceled, and how factors like intent, perceived harm, and identity influence these judgments.

This study explored selected Filipino college students’ perceptions of cancel culture through the lens of Fritz Heider’s Attribution Theory. The framework examined how students perceived the nature of cancellations, considering both internal and external factors. The aim was to understand whether students found the cancellations fair or unfair based on the internal attributes or external factors that influenced their perception of cancel culture. This framework allowed for a nuanced understanding of how students made sense of cancel culture.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to explore college students’ perceptions of cancel culture’s normalization on social media, discuss criteria for a better approach, identify positive aspects to guide responsible use, and develop initiatives for ethical engagement, especially in the education of the young who are mostly in social media where cancel culture proliferates. This paper particularly sought to gain insight into the theoretical and educational implications that emerged from the data.

METHODOLOGY

To gain in-depth insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives on cancel culture, this study utilized Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), a qualitative approach that provided a nuanced understanding of these perceptions. The research design involved a qualitative approach to explore and deeply understand college students’ views on cancel culture and its normalization on social media. Conducted virtually via Zoom, the study involved 10 volunteer college students (four females and six males) from various educational institutions in Metro Manila to ensure a diverse range of perspectives, focusing on participants who were active social media users and familiar with cancel culture. The participants did not arrive at sampling saturation as they were volunteers with diverse viewpoints and only those who volunteered after satisfying the criteria were included in the FGD (with or without reaching saturation). Between eight and ten discussants are considered acceptable in a single group FGD (Central Connecticut State University, n.d.). The goal was not to infer or generalize findings which is established through saturation but understand with more depth about the phenomenon.

The FGD was central to data collection, providing a means to delve deeply into college students’ views on cancel culture. The key questions pursued in the FGD were as follows: (1) When people online call for others to be “canceled” for offensive comments or bad behavior, do you think this is an effective way to hold them accountable? Why or why not?; (2) Have you ever seen someone get “canceled” on social media? Tell us about a situation you saw and how it made you feel. Did you agree with the cancellation or not? Why or why not?; (3) Why do you think so many people participate in “canceling” others online?; and (4) Do you think “cancel culture” can sometimes get people talking more about important social issues? Why or why not? Can you give an example?

The online discussion via Zoom that lasted two hours followed a guide that began with greetings, an orientation on house rules, some disclaimers, and how the FGD will be conducted. Thereafter, the FGD commenced. The discussion was recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure accurate data capture and qualitative analysis. Participants provided informed consent, emphasizing voluntary participation and the right to withdraw at any time. This methodology allowed for the collection of rich, qualitative insights directly addressing the central focus of the study: understanding youth perspectives on cancel culture.

The study employed purposive sampling to select participants, ensuring they were 18 years or older, currently enrolled as college students in Metro Manila, familiar with cancel culture, and active social media users. Research instruments included a pre-screening survey through Google Forms to gather basic information and assess familiarity with cancel culture, and an FGD guide to facilitate discussions. The FGD incorporated presentations of various cancel culture cases to enrich discussions and provide concrete examples for participants to reflect upon.

Data from the FGD sessions were analyzed using Thematic Analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2013) six-step process, which involves familiarizing with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing a report. This approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of the data and a comprehensive report supporting data interpretation. The inclusion of cancel culture cases further enriched the analysis, providing a deeper understanding of specific instances and contexts influencing participants’ perspectives on cancel culture.

RESULTS

College students’ current perceptions regarding cancel culture and its normalization on social media platforms

Effectiveness. Although the students acknowledged that there are certain instances where the act of “canceling” can be warranted, it was generally agreed that participating in “cancel culture” is not the best approach for holding a person accountable for their actions, as education should be the priority. Cancel culture tends to focus more on bringing others down rather than leaving room for growth. Its effectiveness is often debated because, while there are cases where it serves its intended purpose, it also has the potential to encourage individuals to continue harmful behaviors secretly while avoiding public attention to escape consequences, which contradicts the whole idea of accountability. One participant noted: “We’ve seen calls to action for people who have made offensive comments or engaged in illicit behavior. Sometimes it does work. They do change, and there is growth or a sense of making them face the consequences of their actions, but at other times it just causes them to become less noticeable or less public.” According to Jusay et al. (2022), while cancel culture has the power to advocate effectively for social justice and raise awareness about important issues, it also has the potential to normalize bullying culture. The student participants unanimously agreed that, despite instances where cancel culture has been effective, it should be considered a last resort, as it is often characterized by mob mentality. The most ideal course of action is to foster meaningful discourse that educates people and helps them grow out of harmful practices and beliefs.

Attribution theory serves as a useful lens for understanding participants’ perspectives on cancel culture, highlighting how individuals often make judgments based on dispositional (internal) versus situational (external) factors. Participants noted that cancel culture tends to promote harsh dispositional attributions, leading to a complete character assessment based on a single mistake, thereby prioritizing punishment over personal growth and understanding. They advocated for education instead of condemnation, emphasizing the importance of considering the broader context behind individuals’ actions. This aligns with the idea that cancel culture can push undesirable behaviors underground, reflecting the fundamental attribution error, where behaviors are judged more on character than context. Participants also expressed concern that cancel culture fosters a mob mentality, where group dynamics simplify attributions, resulting in overly punitive measures that undermine opportunities for reflection and change, reinforcing the necessity for dialogue rather than immediate condemnation.

Students’ Definitions of Cancel Culture. For students, cancel culture is often defined as a form of public accountability where individuals or organizations face collective backlash for behaviors or statements deemed offensive or harmful. Students recognize its potential to advocate for social justice and raise awareness of systemic issues, but they also critique its focus on punitive measures over educational opportunities. Jusay et al. (2022) highlight that many students see cancel culture as effective in specific cases but largely problematic due to its tendency to normalize bullying and mob mentality.

Participants in the discussions noted that cancel culture prioritizes punishment over education, often overlooking the situational contexts of individuals’ actions. One student reflected: “Sometimes it does work. They do change, and there is growth or a sense of making them face the consequences of their actions, but at other times it just causes them to become less noticeable or less public.” This perspective underscores the duality of cancel culture as both a tool for social change and a mechanism that may inadvertently push harmful behaviors underground, contradicting its intent to promote accountability.

Alignment with Societal Understandings. Students’ perspectives on cancel culture align with societal definitions in their recognition of its dual nature—both as a tool for justice and a source of harm. Broader societal discussions similarly highlight cancel culture’s ability to draw attention to injustices while critiquing its often harsh, unforgiving nature (Ng, 2020). Like societal critics, students point out that cancel culture can reinforce the fundamental attribution error, where judgments are disproportionately based on perceived internal flaws rather than contextual factors (Heider, 1958). Attribution theory provides a lens for understanding these dynamics, emphasizing how dispositional attributions dominate in cancel culture, leading to character assessments based on isolated actions. Students echo societal concerns about this oversimplification, advocating for approaches that promote dialogue, education, and growth rather than immediate condemnation.

Divergences from Societal Understandings. While students’ definitions reflect many societal critiques, their focus on the role of education as an alternative to cancel culture diverges from broader discourses that often emphasize punitive measures. Students argue that fostering meaningful dialogue is a more effective long-term strategy for addressing harmful behaviors and beliefs. This perspective highlights their preference for restorative over retributive justice, positioning education and growth as central to addressing societal issues. Additionally, students uniquely emphasize how cancel culture’s normalization on social media platforms exacerbates mob mentality, creating an environment where collective outrage overshadows critical reflection. This focus on the dynamics of digital platforms adds nuance to their definitions, distinguishing them from broader societal understandings that may not fully account for the technological mechanisms fueling cancel culture.

The Driving Factors of Cancel Culture Engagement. Marsh (2022) highlighted how cancel culture can stifle open discourse and freedom of speech on social media platforms, creating an environment where individuals fear public criticism or being “canceled.” Opinions varied regarding the motivations behind participating in cancel culture. Some participants attributed it to a desire for justice, particularly among the youth who seek to address societal injustices swiftly. Others criticized it as a shortcut that avoids the effort of educating others about offensive behaviors and promoting responsible citizenship. One participant noted: “It comes from a desire to simplify issues, rather than taking the long path of accountability and education.” Peer pressure was identified as a significant driver of cancel culture, with its widespread acceptance turning it into a societal norm and cultural phenomenon.

Attribution theory provides insight into the diverse motivations for participating in cancel culture, as highlighted in Marsh’s (2022) work. Participants who perceive cancel culture as a form of justice, particularly among younger generations, tend to make dispositional attributions, connecting individuals’ behaviors to their internal morality and a desire to rectify societal injustices. This view sees canceling as an expedient way to address wrongs, often at the expense of more gradual processes like education and accountability. Critics, however, argue that this approach oversimplifies complex issues by emphasizing condemnation over understanding, leading to harsh judgments without considering situational influences. Such negative dispositional attributions can hinder meaningful dialogue and personal growth by prioritizing swift judgment over reflection and education. Additionally, peer pressure and social conformity play crucial roles in perpetuating cancel culture, as individuals may feel compelled to engage in canceling behavior due to social norms on platforms like social media, illustrating the significant impact of situational factors in shaping participation.

Justifications for Cancellation. Wychunas (2021) stressed the importance of understanding the complexities surrounding how cancel culture is perceived, emphasizing the need for clear communication and public awareness to prevent unjust cancellations. Participants justified cancellation based on various criteria, including instances of harmful or irredeemable behavior, lack of remorse, and the need for accountability. One participant said: “”We’ve seen calls to action for people who have made offensive comments or engaged in illicit behavior. Sometimes it does work. They do change, and there is growth or a sense of making them face the consequences of their actions.” Canceling influential figures was deemed justified as a means to prevent their negative impact on others and hold them accountable for their actions based on said response. However, participants also criticized cancel culture as unfair in certain contexts. This included situations where criticism devolved into personal attacks, misinformation fueled cancellations, or entire communities suffered repercussions unfairly. Context and mitigating circumstances were seen as crucial factors in determining the fairness of cancellation, advocating for a nuanced approach that considers the severity of the offense and the proportionality of the response. This more nuanced reflection is seen reflected in another participant’s response: “Its effectiveness is often debated because, while there are cases where it serves its intended purpose, it also has the potential to encourage individuals to continue harmful behaviors secretly while avoiding public attention to escape consequences, which contradicts the whole idea of accountability.”

Attribution Theory provides a useful framework for analyzing Wychunas’ (2021) discussion on cancel culture by differentiating between dispositional and situational attributions in understanding behavior. Participants in the discussion often make dispositional attributions when justifying the cancellation of influential figures based on harmful behavior, lack of remorse, or irredeemable actions, suggesting that such negative actions reflect the individual’s inherent character. However, criticism of cancel culture highlights the potential for unfairness, especially when cancellations devolve into personal attacks or are driven by misinformation, as these instances often neglect situational attributions that consider context and mitigating factors. This oversight can lead to unjust cancellations, where a person’s character is maligned without fully understanding their circumstances. Participants advocate for a more nuanced approach that balances both dispositional and situational attributions, emphasizing that context and severity should guide responses. By recognizing the significance of situational influences, the discussion calls for thoughtful and balanced judgments in public reactions to controversial actions and figures, aiming to avoid excessive repercussions associated with cancel culture.

Triggers and Contexts Influencing Students’ Participation in or Opposition to Cancel Culture. Students’ participation in or opposition to cancel culture is influenced by specific triggers and contexts, reflecting their nuanced perspectives on accountability, education, and societal dynamics. Participation is often prompted by perceived moral infractions, such as offensive comments, illicit behaviors, or actions that contradict social justice values. These moments are seen as opportunities to demand accountability and justice. For example, one student noted that cancel culture can occasionally be effective, stating, “We’ve seen calls to action for people who have made offensive comments or engaged in illicit behavior. Sometimes it does work.” Additionally, social media platforms amplify these triggers by providing immediacy and visibility, normalizing the practice of cancel culture as a way to respond to perceived injustices. Advocacy for social justice further motivates participation, as students often view cancel culture as a tool to raise awareness and address systemic inequities (Jusay et al., 2022).

However, many students oppose cancel culture due to concerns about its ineffectiveness in promoting growth and education. They argue that fostering meaningful dialogue is a more effective way to encourage personal and societal change. One participant highlighted this perspective by stating that cancel culture sometimes leads individuals to become “less noticeable or less public,” thereby pushing harmful behaviors underground and contradicting the goal of accountability. Additionally, students are wary of the potential for cancel culture to normalize bullying and mob mentality, which they believe undermines the principles of justice and fairness. This critique aligns with broader concerns that cancel culture simplifies complex issues into punitive actions, often resulting in unfair treatment (Ng, 2020).

Another key factor driving opposition is the recognition of context and the influence of attribution errors. Students criticize cancel culture for promoting harsh dispositional attributions, where isolated mistakes are judged without considering broader situational contexts. Attribution theory highlights how this approach prioritizes punishment over personal growth, which many students view as counterproductive. Instead, they advocate for education and dialogue as the primary means of addressing harmful behaviors, emphasizing that cancel culture should only be a last resort when restorative measures have failed (Jusay et al., 2022).

Ultimately, students seek a balanced approach to handling social and moral infractions. While they acknowledge that cancel culture can be effective in raising awareness, they emphasize the importance of prioritizing education and fostering growth. This perspective underscores the need for restorative approaches that encourage reflection and change, rather than punitive measures that risk perpetuating harm. By emphasizing dialogue and understanding, students propose a constructive framework for navigating the complexities of cancel culture.

Research on cancel culture among adults aligns with college students’ perceptions, particularly regarding its dual nature as a tool for accountability and a source of harm. Both groups recognize its potential to address systemic issues but critique its reliance on punitive measures and mob mentality (Ng, 2020; Jusay et al., 2022). Students emphasize education and dialogue as alternatives to public shaming, reflecting a preference for restorative over retributive justice, which diverges from the punitive focus seen in broader discourses (Wychunas, 2021). Attribution theory highlights the tendency of cancel culture to favor dispositional judgments over situational context, an issue noted in studies involving both adults and students (Marsh, 2022). Additionally, peer pressure and social conformity on social media amplify the normalization of cancel culture, leading to simplified binary judgments (Marsh, 2022). This shared critique underscores the need for proportional responses and nuanced understanding in promoting accountability (Ng, 2020; Wychunas, 2021).

Criteria used to evaluate a better approach to Cancel Culture

Importance of Accountability. The students’ responses underscored the necessity of holding individuals accountable for their past actions or words. Murugesan (2007) highlighted the role of online platforms in fostering critical thinking and adapting communication skills to evolving technologies. Participants expressed a consensus that those directly involved in controversies should face consequences while also acknowledging the potential for personal growth and change over time. One participant shared: “Cancel culture tends to center more on bringing other people down… there are cases where it does serve its supposed purpose.” Another pointed out: “We’ve seen calls to action for people who have made offensive comments or engaged in illicit behavior, but sometimes it does work. They do change, there is a sort of growth or making them face the consequences of their actions.” According to Palomares et al. (2022), cancel culture can serve as a form of restorative justice, emphasizing the importance of sincere regret and meaningful efforts to make amends rather than superficial apologies aimed at preserving public image.

Attribution theory offers valuable insights into the dynamics of accountability and personal growth within cancel culture discussions. When students argue for holding individuals accountable for past actions, they typically make dispositional attributions, viewing controversial behaviors as indicative of inherent character flaws, thereby justifying consequences as a means of accountability. However, these same participants also recognize the potential for personal growth, signaling a shift toward situational attributions that acknowledge external influences on behavior and the capacity for individuals to evolve. Murugesan (2007) highlights how online platforms encourage critical thinking and adaptability, complicating the assessment of accountability as individuals encounter various dispositional and situational factors. While there is a consensus that those involved in controversies should face consequences—reflecting a dispositional viewpoint—the acknowledgment of personal growth suggests a need for more nuanced attributions that consider contextual influences. Palomares et al. (2022) further link cancel culture to restorative justice, emphasizing sincere remorse and the potential for redemption, which aligns with the idea that situational attributions can facilitate personal development. This shift from fixed judgments to a focus on growth and accountability illustrates how a thoughtful approach to cancel culture can promote both justice and rehabilitation.

Learning Experience. Murugesan’s (2007) study contributes insights into the dynamics of contemporary digital discourse and its impact on social norms. Participants viewed cancel culture as a tool for challenging systemic injustices and promoting personal transformation. The participants emphasized that a mistake can also serve as a lesson, particularly for the individual who has done wrong. They believe that a person can unlearn the bad behaviors they have acquired in the past, and that people should be given the chance to reconcile after being canceled by the public. It was mentioned in the discussion that, “… the best course of action to take in imposing accountability is by… unlearn(ing) with proper nurturing.” Most respondents emphasized the importance of focusing on education rather than punishment. Palomares et al. (2022) elaborated that individuals subjected to cancellation often undergo introspection and personal development, learning accountability and social responsibility through public apologies and genuine acknowledgment of their actions.

Attribution theory unveils the role of cancel culture as a mechanism for addressing systemic injustices and fostering personal transformation, as discussed by Murugesan (2007) and Palomares et al. (2022). Participants often made dispositional attributions when they view cancel culture as a way to hold individuals accountable for harmful actions that perpetuate social injustices, such as racism and sexism. In this light, cancel culture serves as a means of exposing and condemning harmful behaviors. However, the notion that those who are canceled can experience personal development and transformation highlights the importance of situational attributions; public scrutiny can lead to reflection and personal growth, prompting individuals to embrace accountability and social responsibility. This process illustrates how behavior can evolve in response to external pressures, such as public backlash. Additionally, the act of making public apologies signifies a shift from viewing individuals as fundamentally flawed to recognizing their capacity for growth and change, emphasizing the significance of situational attributions in understanding how people can learn from their mistakes and understand their societal impact.

Acknowledging Mistakes. Participants stressed the importance of adopting a holistic perspective when addressing issues through cancel culture, focusing on learning from mistakes rather than permanently labeling individuals for past wrongdoings. Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) discuss how cancel culture calls out public figures for their problematic actions, sparking critical conversations and societal change, such as seen in movements like #MeToo that amplify voices of victims and minorities. The participants emphasized that mistakes should be seen as opportunities for personal growth, advocating for education and nurturing rather than condemnation alone, as articulated during the discussions: “… to recognize that making mistakes is part of human nature…”

Attribution theory opens the need for a more holistic approach to cancel culture, where mistakes are seen as opportunities for personal growth rather than permanent labels. Participants emphasized the shift from dispositional attributions, which blame an individual’s character, to situational attributions that consider context and the potential for change. This learning-oriented approach acknowledges that human behavior is not static and can improve through guidance and education. Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) illustrate how cancel culture can spark critical societal conversations, such as in the #MeToo movement, by initially focusing on individual actions but gradually recognizing broader situational factors. Participants’ emphasis on conversations and the belief that “making mistakes is part of human nature” highlights the importance of balancing accountability with opportunities for personal development. This perspective advocates for education and self-reflection, suggesting that cancel culture can be a catalyst for transformative change rather than solely punitive action.

The criteria identified for a better approach to cancel culture among students align with existing research on adult populations, highlighting the nuanced dynamics of accountability, personal growth, and systemic change. Students emphasized the importance of holding individuals accountable while recognizing the potential for personal transformation, echoing Palomares et al.’s (2022) view that cancel culture can serve as a form of restorative justice, fostering sincere remorse and meaningful change. Similarly, Murugesan’s (2007) findings underscore how digital platforms encourage critical thinking and adaptability, enabling a shift from dispositional attributions—blaming inherent character flaws—to situational attributions that acknowledge external influences and personal evolution. This parallels Wahyudiputra et al.’s (2021) discussion on how cancel culture sparks societal conversations, such as the #MeToo movement, which emphasizes systemic injustice and personal growth. Both students and existing research advocate for education and dialogue over punitive measures, underscoring cancel culture’s potential to promote accountability, introspection, and societal progress when approached with balance and empathy.

Positive aspects of cancel culture that can guide young individuals in responsibly and ethically utilizing it

Addressing Social Issues. Students perceive cancel culture as a catalyst for addressing social issues positively. Averion et al. (2021) highlight its role in the Filipino online community, particularly in addressing racism within mainstream entertainment. During discussions, participants noted, “Cancel culture can bring attention to social issues because it enables people to discuss the issue being raised in the ‘cancellation.'” This aspect underscores cancel culture’s ability to spark conversations and explanations alongside criticisms, fostering awareness and discourse. Furthermore, students view cancel culture as a force that motivates individuals to educate themselves and engage in significant conversations about societal matters. One participant stated, “It motivates people to familiarize themselves with the issues and take action to address them.”

Attribution theory reveals how students view cancel culture as a positive force for addressing social issues. When students emphasized cancel culture’s ability to spotlight important topics, they recognize the influence of situational attributions that encourage critical discussions and reflection. Averion et al. (2021) noted that cancel culture has significantly impacted the Filipino online community, particularly in combatting racism in mainstream entertainment, suggesting that participants see cancel culture as a tool for promoting social responsibility and discourse. Comments like “Cancel culture can bring attention to social issues” illustrate that while individuals may be criticized for their actions (a dispositional attribution), the ensuing dialogue often shifts the focus to broader societal contexts. This fosters opportunities for education and understanding, encouraging exploration of complex issues rather than mere condemnation. Additionally, participants’ views on cancel culture motivating people to educate themselves highlight the role of social learning in shaping behaviors, reinforcing the idea that when approached constructively, cancel culture can catalyze social change by promoting reflection, dialogue, and awareness rather than solely punitive measures.

Amplified Discussion about Social Issues. Cancel culture also serves to amplify discussions on social justice and equity. Participants noted that it provides a platform to advocate for justice, especially for marginalized groups. According to Jusay et al. (2022), canceling individuals for their actions raises awareness and initiates meaningful conversations about fundamental societal issues. Participants highlighted, “Cancel culture reveals societal issues and sparks conversations that lead to necessary changes.” Participants emphasized that cancel culture’s effectiveness in holding public figures accountable for their actions contributes to promoting social justice. This process not only calls out problematic behavior but also fosters discussions that address underlying societal issues and promote accountability.

Attribution theory unravels the dynamics of cancel culture as a tool for enhancing discussions on social justice and equity. Participants acknowledged that cancel culture serves as a platform to advocate for justice, particularly for marginalized groups, reflecting both dispositional attributions—focused on the character and actions of those being canceled—and situational attributions that consider the broader societal context. Jusay et al. (2022) highlighted that canceling individuals raises awareness and fosters meaningful conversations about fundamental societal issues, illustrating how attribution processes shape perceptions of responsibility in social discourse. The assertion that “Cancel culture reveals societal issues and sparks conversations that lead to necessary changes” underscores the dual role of attribution, as it holds individuals accountable while simultaneously shifting conversations toward the systemic nature of the issues discussed. This perspective fosters a nuanced understanding of accountability beyond individual fault, emphasizing cancel culture’s effectiveness in promoting social justice. By initiating discussions that address underlying societal problems, cancel culture acts as a catalyst for collective reflection and change, demonstrating how situational factors like public outrage can influence attributions and drive meaningful societal transformation.

Raising Awareness. By calling attention to problematic behaviors, cancel culture plays a crucial role in raising awareness about various social issues. Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) discussed its impact on issues like transgender rights and representation, empowering marginalized communities to voice their concerns. Participants noted that cancel culture’s ability to amplify diverse perspectives and opinions broadens understanding and empowers marginalized communities. One participant mentioned, “It amplifies voices and raises awareness about issues that are often overlooked.” Moreover, students highlighted cancel culture’s role in prompting further research and discussion, encouraging individuals to delve deeper into the reasons behind cancellations. This aspect not only raises awareness but also encourages critical thinking and informed discourse on complex societal issues.

Attribution theory serves as a valuable lens for understanding how cancel culture raises awareness about social issues and empowers marginalized communities. Participants highlighted problematic behaviors through dispositional attributions, emphasizing accountability for actions that warrant cancellation, as illustrated by Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) in their discussion of transgender rights and the challenge to systemic inequality. However, participants also recognized cancel culture’s role in amplifying diverse perspectives, indicating a shift toward situational attributions that create opportunities for marginalized voices to be heard. By stating that it “amplifies voices and raises awareness about issues that are often overlooked,” they emphasized the influence of societal norms and cultural narratives on social justice discourse. This dynamic encourages critical thinking about the complexities of systemic inequalities, allowing individuals to engage with broader implications of social movements. Ultimately, cancel culture not only raises awareness but also empowers.

The positive aspects of cancel culture, as discussed by students, align with and extend existing research on its role in addressing social issues, amplifying discussions on justice and equity, and raising awareness about marginalized communities. Averion et al. (2021) and Jusay et al. (2022) also underscore cancel culture’s potential as a catalyst for promoting social responsibility, especially in the Filipino online community, by focusing on racism and social justice. Students’ views on cancel culture sparking significant conversations reflect the broader societal impacts that researchers have highlighted. Attribution theory, in this context, illustrates how students use both dispositional and situational attributions, holding individuals accountable for harmful behaviors while also recognizing the broader societal factors that contribute to such issues (Averion et al., 2021). Furthermore, Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) show how cancel culture empowers marginalized groups by raising awareness of issues like transgender rights, mirroring student observations that cancel culture amplifies overlooked perspectives. These findings suggest that cancel culture, when used constructively, can not only serve as a tool for holding individuals accountable but also facilitate systemic reflection and meaningful dialogue around critical social issues.

Initiative that can be developed to promote responsible use of cancel culture

Education. Cancel culture’s inherent mob mentality can facilitate the spread of misinformation. This happens because the focus on swift public condemnation often overrides the verification of information that fuels the outrage (Infante et al., 2023). Cancel culture can also serve as a tactic when individuals are reluctant to engage in educating others. This occurs when there is a shift towards immediate public denunciation rather than fostering an understanding of why certain behaviors or words are deemed offensive.

Regarding engagement in cancel culture, participants emphasized the importance of educating one another to promote accountability. They argued that a more restorative approach to accountability, which prioritizes education and personal growth over public shaming, would be more effective than simply canceling someone. As one participant stated, “I think it’s better to focus on education because as humans, it’s in our nature to make mistakes, and nobody is perfect. So, I believe that as long as a person can improve, we should help them do that, even if a mistake they made may have harmed us.”

The discussion around cancel culture’s negative aspects, such as its potential to spread misinformation and reduce opportunities for education, aligns with various studies on the subject, particularly concerning adult populations. Infante et al. (2023) emphasize that cancel culture, due to its swift and emotional public condemnation, often overlooks fact-checking and leads to the rapid spread of misinformation. This view parallels the students’ critique that cancel culture’s “mob mentality” can exacerbate issues by focusing on immediate outrage rather than verification of claims. Similarly, the shift towards condemnation without dialogue often overshadows the need for education and understanding about why certain actions or words are offensive.

Research on adult populations also supports the notion that cancel culture can, at times, foster a reluctance to educate. Studies indicate that some individuals and groups prefer the swift resolution provided by public shaming over the more time-consuming process of educating others (Mendelson & Papageorgiou, 2022). This dynamic, in which the focus is on punishment rather than growth, has been critiqued for its inability to foster long-term behavioral change. On the other hand, the participants’ advocacy for a restorative approach to accountability reflects emerging perspectives in adult-focused research on cancel culture, which argue for a more educational and rehabilitative approach. In contrast to punitive measures, this approach emphasizes personal growth, reflection, and the opportunity for individuals to learn from their mistakes. As noted by Palomares et al. (2022), a restorative justice framework can help create an environment where mistakes are seen as opportunities for education and improvement, rather than just occasions for condemnation.

In this regard, cancel culture’s potential for fostering education and personal development over punitive actions is increasingly supported by scholars advocating for balance. Rather than focusing solely on canceling individuals, some researchers argue for a more nuanced approach that involves constructive dialogue, rehabilitation, and an emphasis on learning (Wahyudiputra et al., 2021). The participants’ perspective on cancel culture aligns with these scholarly calls for a shift from the traditional mob mentality to a focus on education, forgiveness, and growth.

Attribution theory help clarify the dynamics of cancel culture, particularly regarding its propensity for mob mentality and misinformation spread. Participants noted that the rapid public condemnation characteristic of cancel culture often overlooks the need for information verification, highlighting how dispositional attributions focus on individual behaviors rather than context. This groupthink leads to hasty judgments, as illustrated by Infante et al. (2023), which can further propagate misinformation. Additionally, participants expressed concern that prioritizing public denunciation over education undermines constructive dialogue, suggesting a shift from acknowledging situational factors that facilitate learning and growth. The assertion that “it’s better to focus on education because as humans, it’s in our nature to make mistakes” underscores the potential for change through situational learning. This perspective advocates for a shift from blame to understanding, emphasizing that individuals can improve and evolve. By prioritizing education and personal growth over public shaming, participants called for an approach that fosters accountability through understanding, addressing the limitations of a purely punitive framework in the context of cancel culture.

DISCUSSION

Cancel Culture and Public Opinion

Cancel culture profoundly influences public opinion by mobilizing swift and widespread condemnation through social media platforms. Participants in the study generally agreed that while canceling may seem justified in certain instances, it often falls short as a constructive method for holding individuals accountable. Instead, they advocate for prioritizing education and growth over punitive measures, asserting that cancel culture can foster a mob mentality that undermines its effectiveness (Infante et al., 2023).

According to Jusay et al. (2022), cancel culture has a dual nature—it can promote social justice and awareness but also risks normalizing bullying behaviors. Participants stressed that while effective outcomes are possible, cancel culture’s association with mob mentality necessitates it being a last resort rather than a primary approach. They emphasized the importance of fostering meaningful dialogue to educate and promote personal development, as one participant highlighted: “I think it’s better to focus on education because as humans it’s in our nature to make mistakes, and nobody is perfect.”

Marsh (2022) points out that cancel culture can stifle open discourse and freedom of speech by creating an environment of fear and self-censorship on social media. Motivations for engaging in cancel culture vary; some participants attribute it to a desire for swift justice, particularly among the youth, while others criticize it as a shortcut that avoids the effort of educating others about offensive behaviors. Peer pressure also plays a significant role, as cancel culture becomes increasingly normalized and accepted within society (Marsh, 2022).

Wychunas (2021) underscores the complexity of justifications for cancellation, emphasizing the need for clear communication and public awareness to prevent unjust cancellations. Participants justify cancellation based on criteria such as harmful behavior and lack of remorse but critique its unfairness when criticism devolves into personal attacks or when mitigating circumstances are ignored. This nuanced perspective calls for a balanced approach that considers both the severity of the offense and the appropriateness of the response (Wychunas, 2021).

Hence, cancel culture shapes public opinion by amplifying controversies, fostering polarization, and influencing reputations through social media-driven collective action. Its impact on societal discourse underscores the need for informed dialogue and responsible engagement to mitigate its potential for misinformation and unjust consequences.

The Role of Social Media Platforms in Shaping Students’ Perceptions and Behaviors Related to Cancel Culture

Social media platforms play a pivotal role in shaping students’ perceptions and behaviors related to cancel culture by amplifying both the driving factors and justifications for engagement. These platforms create environments where cancel culture is normalized, often encouraging swift reactions to perceived societal injustices. Marsh (2022) highlights how social media fosters a culture of fear surrounding public criticism or being “canceled,” stifling open discourse and limiting freedom of speech. Among college students, this environment promotes varying motivations for participating in cancel culture. Some students view it as a means of achieving justice, particularly when addressing social issues quickly and visibly. As one participant remarked, cancel culture often stems from a desire to simplify complex issues, bypassing the more demanding path of education and accountability. However, this oversimplification risks undermining opportunities for reflection, learning, and dialogue.

Attribution theory sheds light on the motivations behind students’ engagement with cancel culture on social media. Those who perceive it as a form of justice tend to make dispositional attributions, interpreting individuals’ actions as reflections of their internal morality rather than considering situational factors. This perspective emphasizes immediate condemnation over gradual accountability, reinforcing the swift, public nature of cancel culture that social media platforms facilitate. Critics argue that such an approach promotes harsh judgments without room for understanding, creating an environment where mistakes are treated as irredeemable. Negative dispositional attributions, exacerbated by the rapid dissemination of information on social media, often escalate cancel culture into punitive measures rather than constructive conversations (Marsh, 2022).

Peer pressure and social conformity further solidify the role of social media in perpetuating cancel culture. Students reported feeling compelled to participate in cancellations to align with social norms on platforms where such behaviors have become a cultural phenomenon. These situational influences demonstrate how social media amplifies the collective dynamics of cancel culture, turning individual acts of judgment into widespread societal practices. This normalization is particularly evident when influential figures are canceled, as their high visibility makes them focal points for addressing perceived wrongdoings. Wychunas (2021) emphasizes the importance of clear communication and public awareness to ensure fairness in such cases, noting that cancellations should account for context, mitigating circumstances, and the proportionality of responses.

Students also justify participation in cancel culture based on the severity of offenses and the perceived need for accountability. Harmful or irredeemable behavior, lack of remorse, and potential societal impact are common criteria for cancellation. One participant shared that “calls to action” have sometimes led to growth and accountability, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of cancel culture in certain contexts. However, students remain critical of unfair cancellations, particularly those fueled by personal attacks, misinformation, or collective punishment. This nuanced perspective underscores the dual-edged nature of social media’s role: while it facilitates justice and awareness, it also fosters environments where mob mentality and misinformation can thrive. As another participant noted, cancel culture can inadvertently encourage harmful behaviors to continue in secrecy, undermining the principles of accountability and personal growth.

The Role of Identity and Intersectionality in Cancel Culture

Students’ Identities and Their Attitudes Toward Cancel Culture. Students’ perceptions of cancel culture are deeply influenced by their personal identities, including race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. For marginalized groups, cancel culture often resonates as a tool for addressing systemic inequities and amplifying voices traditionally excluded from public discourse. This perspective aligns with Jusay et al. (2022), who highlighted how students view cancel culture as a mechanism for raising awareness of systemic issues and promoting accountability. However, the punitive focus of cancel culture has led some students to critique it as perpetuating mob mentality rather than fostering growth and understanding.

Intersectionality plays a pivotal role in the following:

Race. Students of color might perceive cancel culture as a means to challenge racist behaviors and hold perpetrators accountable, yet they may also be more attuned to the disproportionate consequences faced by marginalized individuals when cancel culture targets them (Ng, 2020).

Gender and Sexual Orientation. Women and LGBTQ+ students often experience cancel culture as both a platform for advocacy against sexism and homophobia and a space where backlash can target their identities (Marsh, 2022).

Socioeconomic Status. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may emphasize the disparity in who can “recover” from being canceled, pointing to how wealthier individuals often have more resources to navigate the consequences (Jusay et al., 2022).

Marginalized Groups and Their Experiences with Cancel Culture. Marginalized groups face unique challenges in navigating cancel culture. While cancel culture can be empowering for those seeking justice, it can also exacerbate vulnerabilities:

Overrepresentation as Targets. Marginalized individuals are often disproportionately canceled for behaviors that are overlooked in others, reflecting broader societal biases (Ng, 2020).

Psychological Impact. For students from these groups, public backlash can compound existing societal pressures, further silencing their voices (Wychunas, 2021).

Risk of Tokenization. While cancel culture may raise awareness of specific issues, it can also tokenize individuals or communities, reducing complex identities to singular causes or mistakes (Marsh, 2022).

The dual nature of cancel culture, as both a platform for justice and a mechanism for harm, underscores the importance of situational factors. Students argue for the need to contextualize offenses and adopt restorative approaches rather than default to punitive measures (Jusay et al., 2022).

The Influence of Formal Education on Views of Cancel Culture. Educational frameworks significantly shape how students perceive and engage with cancel culture. Formal education, particularly in critical thinking, media literacy, and social justice, can empower students to critically evaluate cancel culture’s nuances:

Critical Thinking. Training in critical thinking helps students recognize the complexities of human behavior and the risks of over-reliance on dispositional attributions. They learn to question whether cancel culture’s punitive nature aligns with its goal of accountability and justice (Heider, 1958).

Media Literacy. Education in media literacy enables students to navigate the dynamics of social media, where cancel culture thrives. Understanding algorithms, echo chambers, and the role of misinformation helps them approach cancel culture with skepticism and a focus on fairness (Ng, 2020).

Social Justice. Social justice education emphasizes systemic change and restorative practices, encouraging students to see education and dialogue as alternatives to cancellation. This aligns with their critiques of cancel culture’s punitive tendencies, as noted by Jusay et al. (2022).

One participant’s perspective—that cancel culture risks pushing harmful behaviors underground—further highlights the value of education in fostering long-term accountability through reflection and dialogue rather than immediate condemnation (Wychunas, 2021).

Cancel Culture and Attribution Theory

Attribution theory provides a useful framework to understand how cancel culture influences public opinion, particularly in how individuals perceive and attribute causes for others’ behaviors or actions.

Internal Attribution. Participants’ viewpoints on cancel culture, as analyzed through Attribution Theory, reflecedt a growing recognition of the need to move beyond purely dispositional attributions and adopt a more holistic approach. They emphasized that cancel culture often attributes problematic behaviors or statements to internal, stable characteristics of individuals, leading to harsh judgments without considering external factors. For example, when a public figure is canceled for making a racially insensitive comment, participants acknowledged that the public tends to focus on the person’s inherent beliefs or character flaws, leading to swift condemnation. This form of dispositional attribution disregards the possibility that external influences such as upbringing, social environment, or evolving societal norms may have shaped their behavior.

However, participants argued that cancel culture should not be solely punitive but should encourage critical conversations and personal growth. They recognized that situational attributions—those that consider the broader context and external factors—are essential for fostering a more nuanced understanding of accountability. For instance, some participants have pointed out that while individuals may be canceled for offensive behavior, the resulting dialogue often brings attention to systemic issues like racism or sexism, and allows for education and transformation. This suggests that cancel culture, when approached thoughtfully, can act as a catalyst for social change.

Participants who emphasized that “making mistakes is part of human nature” support a more balanced view of accountability, advocating for an approach that encourages learning and self-reflection. They suggested that rather than permanently labeling individuals for their past actions, cancel culture should offer the possibility of growth through education and the opportunity for individuals to evolve in response to public scrutiny. By prioritizing education over punitive measures, participants argued that cancel culture can serve as a means of both addressing harmful behaviors and empowering individuals to develop and improve. This holistic perspective supports the idea that cancel culture can be constructive when it allows for dialogue, understanding, and the potential for personal transformation.

External Attribution. In many instances, cancel culture focuses predominantly on internal attributions, where individuals are judged based on their character or inherent traits, often neglecting external factors or situational influences. Participants have acknowledged that cancel culture tends to emphasize personal accountability and character flaws, particularly when someone is canceled for past behaviors or statements that are no longer socially acceptable. This rush to judgment often attributes offensive actions to the person’s inherent beliefs, with little regard for the context in which those actions occurred or how societal norms have shifted over time.

For example, when a celebrity is canceled for a behavior that was once deemed acceptable but has since become offensive due to evolving social standards, cancel culture tends to overlook external factors such as the social environment or pressures that influenced that behavior. As Wahyudiputra et al. (2021) highlight, public condemnation is often swift, with the focus being on the individual’s perceived flaws rather than acknowledging how changing societal norms may have contributed to the behavior.

However, some participants argued that situational attributions—factors like external pressures or the cultural context of the time—should be considered. They advocated for a more balanced approach, where both internal and external factors are considered. As participants pointed out, “making mistakes is part of human nature,” and cancel culture could benefit from recognizing that behaviors are not always reflective of fixed personal traits but can be influenced by external circumstances. This perspective supports the idea that individuals should be held accountable, but also given the opportunity to learn and grow, acknowledging the role of situational factors in shaping behaviors.

By focusing primarily on internal attributions and ignoring external influences, cancel culture risks limiting opportunities for constructive dialogue and personal growth. Participants advocated for a more nuanced approach that allows individuals to reflect on their past actions within the context of societal change, fostering education and understanding rather than simply assigning blame. This shift would enable cancel culture to evolve from a punitive mechanism into a platform for broader social reflection and transformation.

Fundamental Attribution Error. Cancel culture can exacerbate the fundamental attribution error, which refers to the tendency to overemphasize internal factors (personality, intentions) and underestimate external factors (situational influences) when explaining others’ behavior. In the context of cancel culture, this error manifests as a rush to judge and condemn based on perceived character flaws or moral failings without fully considering the broader context or potential for change.

When a public figure is canceled for a single offensive remark without considering their overall body of work or efforts to apologize and learn from the mistake, cancel culture reflects a tendency towards fundamental attribution error. The focus remains on internal attributions of wrongdoing rather than acknowledging external factors or the potential for personal growth.

Impact on Perceived Accountability and Social Norms. Cancel culture significantly shapes public opinion by reinforcing societal norms and influencing perceptions of accountability. When a public figure is canceled for discriminatory behavior, the process not only holds them accountable but also sends a message to the broader society about what is acceptable or unacceptable. Participants have highlighted that cancel culture can be an effective tool for raising awareness of social issues, as seen in movements like #MeToo and in discussions on transgender rights (Wahyudiputra et al., 2021). By canceling individuals for offensive actions, society signals the consequences of violating these evolving norms, which influences public behavior and establishes new standards for what is deemed appropriate.

Attribution theory helps explain how cancel culture shapes these perceptions by focusing on internal attributions—where individuals’ behaviors are often attributed to character flaws or moral failings. As participants noted, this emphasis on dispositional attributions can result in harsh judgments that overshadow situational factors, such as changing societal norms or external pressures that may have influenced the canceled individual’s behavior. For instance, public condemnation may focus on personal accountability without considering that certain behaviors, once socially acceptable, are now seen in a different light due to shifting cultural standards.

This internal attribution can lead to severe reputational damage for those canceled, significantly impacting how they are perceived by the public and their ability to participate in public discourse. Participants recognized that while cancel culture emphasizes accountability, it can also limit opportunities for personal growth by focusing solely on punishment rather than understanding the broader context. As one participant put it, “Cancel culture reveals societal issues and sparks conversations that lead to necessary changes,” but these changes are often driven by public outrage rather than a holistic understanding of the factors contributing to the behavior.

By examining cancel culture through attribution theory, we gain insight into how it operates—shaping public opinion, reinforcing social norms, and influencing the reputations of those involved. While the emphasis on internal attributions helps hold individuals accountable, participants suggest that a more balanced approach, acknowledging situational factors and potential for growth, could lead to more constructive outcomes and allow for a deeper exploration of social issues.

Educational Challenge: Compassionate Education and Restorative Justice

Compassionate Education. In the era of cancel culture, compassionate education faces significant challenges stemming from the polarizing nature of online discourse and the fear of public backlash. Cancel culture, characterized by swift and often severe public condemnation of individuals or entities for perceived offenses, has reshaped how educators approach teaching empathy and understanding (Marsh, 2022). The pressure to conform to prevailing online opinions can stifle open dialogue and critical thinking in educational settings, hindering the development of empathy and tolerance (Traversa et al., 2023). Educators must navigate the delicate balance between fostering a supportive learning environment and addressing sensitive topics without fear of repercussion (Morgan, 2021). As one participant emphasized, “I think it’s better to focus on education because as humans, it’s in our nature to make mistakes, and nobody is perfect. So, I believe that as long as a person can improve, we should help them do that, even if a mistake they made may have harmed us.”

Moreover, the pervasive nature of cancel culture can discourage educators from discussing nuanced or controversial subjects, thereby limiting students’ exposure to diverse perspectives and hindering their ability to engage in constructive debate (Rom & Mitchell, 2021). This phenomenon underscores the importance of media literacy and ethical reasoning in education, equipping students with the skills to critically evaluate information and navigate complex ethical dilemmas (Cherry, 2023; Norris, 2021). Participants noted that “Cancel culture can bring attention to social issues because it enables people to discuss the issue being raised in the ‘cancellation.'” This perspective underscores the necessity of fostering critical thinking and engagement among students, who can use the discourse generated by cancel culture as an opportunity for learning and personal growth.

Furthermore, compassionate education in the era of cancel culture necessitates creating inclusive spaces where students feel safe to express opinions, ask questions, and learn from each other’s experiences (Waani & Wempi, 2021). By promoting empathy and understanding, educators can mitigate the negative impacts of cancel culture on youth and foster a more compassionate society (Zembylas, 2023). A participant emphasized, “It amplifies voices and raises awareness about issues that are often overlooked,” illustrating the potential for cancel culture to serve as a catalyst for important conversations. While cancel culture poses challenges to compassionate education by fostering a climate of fear and censorship, educators play a crucial role in promoting empathy, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning among students. By embracing diversity of thought and fostering open dialogue, educators can navigate these challenges and cultivate a more compassionate and inclusive learning environment.

Restorative Justice. Restorative justice holds significant importance in the realm of compassionate education by offering a framework that prioritizes empathy, understanding, and reconciliation over punitive measures. Restorative justice offers a compelling alternative to cancel culture by promoting dialogue, empathy, and reconciliation instead of punitive measures and exclusion. Cancel culture often involves swift judgment and condemnation, focusing on holding individuals accountable through public shaming or ostracism, which can perpetuate divisiveness and harm. In contrast, restorative justice seeks to address harm in a constructive manner, emphasizing understanding and repairing relationships rather than perpetuating conflict (Zehr, 2015).

Firstly, restorative justice encourages all parties involved to engage in meaningful dialogue. This process allows individuals who have caused harm to understand the impact of their actions on others and take responsibility for their behavior (Morrison, 2002). Instead of simply condemning and canceling individuals, restorative practices offer them an opportunity to reflect on their actions, learn from their mistakes, and make amends. By fostering empathy and understanding, restorative justice aims to heal relationships and promote personal growth, which are often overlooked in cancel culture’s approach (Hopkins, 2014). A participant expressed a consensus that “a more restorative approach to accountability, which prioritizes education and personal growth over public shaming, would be more effective than simply canceling someone.”

Moreover, restorative justice promotes inclusivity and community-building within social contexts. Cancel culture tends to create divisions and perpetuate a culture of fear where individuals may hesitate to express opinions or engage in open dialogue for fear of being targeted (Gregory et al., 2016). In contrast, restorative practices emphasize the importance of collective responsibility and mutual respect. By involving all affected parties in the resolution process, restorative justice fosters a sense of belonging and encourages collaboration in finding solutions that address underlying issues rather than perpetuating conflict (Sherman et al., 2005). As noted by a participant, the process of “recognizing that making mistakes is part of human nature” is essential for creating an environment where individuals can learn and grow.

Restorative justice emphasizes the well-being of both the harmed and the harmer, offering a more inclusive and empathetic approach than cancel culture. Participants echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that “it’s better to focus on education because as humans, it’s in our nature to make mistakes.” This highlights the importance of offering support for personal growth and change rather than solely focusing on punishment. Another participant noted that “making mistakes is part of human nature,” underscoring the need for a nuanced approach to accountability that fosters understanding and personal development. By advocating for a more balanced response, participants recognize the value of restorative justice, which prioritizes constructive dialogue and inclusivity. They argue that cancel culture can stifle opportunities for learning and reconciliation, stating, “The reluctance to engage in educating others reflects a shift from situational attributions to a more immediate focus on punitive measures.” This reflects the broader idea that restorative practices promote understanding and empathy, ultimately building more resilient communities by encouraging collective responsibility and fostering a supportive environment for learning and growth.

The relationship between empathy and students’ willingness to engage in restorative justice practices has been explored in several educational and psychological studies, and it suggests that higher levels of empathy are generally associated with a greater openness to restorative justice methods. Restorative justice practices emphasize healing, dialogue, and repairing harm, rather than punitive measures, and they can be particularly effective in school settings where conflict resolution and behavior correction are essential.

Empathy and Restorative Justice. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, plays a crucial role in how individuals respond to conflict and wrongdoing. Research shows that when individuals, including students, can empathize with the perspectives and emotions of those affected by their actions, they are more likely to engage in practices aimed at repair and reconciliation (Zehr, 2002). Empathetic students are more inclined to understand the harm caused by their behavior, which in turn encourages them to take responsibility for their actions and seek solutions that involve dialogue and restoration.

In restorative justice practices, empathy is a foundational component because it helps to create a safe and open environment for all participants to express their feelings and perspectives (Mendelson, 2021). For students, especially in school settings, understanding the harm their behavior has caused can motivate them to engage in restorative meetings or conferences with the intent to repair relationships. This contrasts with punitive approaches, which focus more on retribution than on addressing the emotional needs of both the victim and the offender.

Studies on Empathy and Restorative Justice Engagement. Research suggests that students with higher levels of empathy are more likely to engage in restorative justice practices. A study by González (2019) found that students who scored higher on empathy assessments were more likely to participate in restorative circles or conferences and were more willing to engage in the reflection process. This may be because these students feel a stronger connection to the harmed party and recognize the emotional and social importance of repairing relationships.

According to Lederach (2014), empathy facilitates understanding the emotional impact of actions on others, which is essential in restorative justice processes. This understanding helps individuals acknowledge the hurt they caused, which is a critical first step in the process of restorative justice. In a school environment, students with empathetic dispositions are more likely to participate in restorative meetings and genuinely attempt to resolve conflicts in a way that promotes healing rather than exacerbating divisions.

Empathy has been shown to reduce recidivism in behavioral offenses, which is one of the key goals of restorative justice. A study by Cohn & Bradshaw (2020) found that students who engaged in restorative justice after an offense showed a decrease in repeat behavioral issues. The students who were able to engage empathetically with those harmed in the process were more likely to internalize the values of accountability and reconciliation, leading to long-term positive behavior changes.

Programs that explicitly teach and encourage empathy in conjunction with restorative justice processes can increase students’ willingness to participate. In a study by Hopkins (2018), a restorative justice program implemented in schools included an empathy-building component. The program found that students who developed stronger empathy through structured activities were more likely to engage in the restorative process and to resolve conflicts in more peaceful ways.

Practical Applications in Education. Incorporating empathy training into the curriculum can help prepare students to engage in restorative justice practices. Students learn how to listen actively, understand diverse perspectives, and recognize the emotional impact of their actions. As students practice these skills, they are more likely to adopt them in situations where conflict arises, making them more willing to participate in restorative justice interventions (Empathy Training). Restorative circles are a common practice in schools implementing restorative justice. These circles are designed to give everyone involved in a conflict the opportunity to speak and be heard. For students, the process is more effective when they approach it with empathy. The restorative circle fosters an environment where empathy is both necessary and encouraged, allowing students to feel safe while understanding the impact of their actions on others (Restorative Circles). Teachers and peers who model empathy in their interactions can inspire students to engage more actively in restorative justice practices. When students observe empathetic behavior in their educators or fellow students, they are more likely to adopt similar attitudes and behaviors in their own interactions (Teacher and Peer Role Models).

Perspective-taking. The cognitive process of understanding and considering another person’s viewpoint, can play a critical role in mitigating the negative consequences of cancel culture. While cancel culture has been criticized for promoting swift condemnation without fully understanding the reasons behind someone’s actions, integrating perspective-taking into the process could encourage more thoughtful, empathetic, and constructive engagement with individuals who have made mistakes. Here’s how perspective-taking could address the negative aspects of cancel culture:

Encouraging Empathy and Reducing Misinformation. One of the key critiques of cancel culture is its tendency to amplify misinformation and focus on punitive actions rather than seeking understanding (Infante et al., 2023). The rush to judgment often leads to a mob mentality, where individuals are quick to condemn others without verifying facts or considering the complexity of the situation. Perspective-taking can serve as a counterbalance by prompting individuals to pause and attempt to understand the broader context behind a person’s actions.

For instance, if individuals involved in cancel culture were encouraged to practice perspective-taking, they might pause to reflect on the reasons behind a person’s controversial statement or action. Rather than jumping to conclusions, they might consider factors such as intent, past experiences, or systemic influences that may have contributed to the behavior. By fostering a more nuanced understanding, perspective-taking could reduce the spread of misinformation and encourage more informed, thoughtful discussions about issues of public concern.

Shifting from Punishment to Education. Another concern with cancel culture is its tendency to focus on punishment and public shaming, rather than providing opportunities for growth or education (Infante et al., 2023). Perspective-taking can help mitigate this aspect by encouraging a more restorative approach. Instead of simply seeking to “cancel” individuals who have made mistakes, participants in the cancel culture conversation could be encouraged to take the perspective of those being criticized and to consider how best to promote their personal growth.

For example, a person who has made an offensive remark might be more willing to engage in productive discussions if they feel that others are genuinely trying to understand their perspective and offer constructive feedback. Perspective-taking could help to create a space for dialogue and education, where individuals can learn from their mistakes and grow, rather than being ostracized without the chance to improve.

Promoting Accountability While Avoiding Dehumanization. One of the negative effects of cancel culture is the tendency to dehumanize the individuals being criticized. When people are reduced to their mistakes or controversial actions, they can become targets of public humiliation, which may undermine their humanity in the process. This dehumanization can escalate conflict and lead to further polarization (Wahyudiputra et al., 2021).

Perspective-taking, however, can mitigate this dehumanizing effect by reminding individuals that everyone is fallible and that people should be judged in a broader, more holistic context. By recognizing that everyone has a past and can grow from their mistakes, perspective-taking can help maintain a sense of humanity, allowing individuals to be held accountable for their actions without being reduced to their worst behavior. For example, if people involved in cancel culture engage in perspective-taking, they may realize that the person who made the offensive remark has a history of learning and improving. This could encourage them to approach the situation with a mindset of helping that individual grow, rather than pushing them further into shame and isolation.

Reducing Polarization and Fostering Constructive Dialogue. Cancel culture often fosters a divisive “us vs. them” mentality, where individuals are forced to take sides and those who are “canceled” are viewed as irredeemable. This polarization can stifle meaningful dialogue and limit opportunities for growth and mutual understanding (González, 2019). Perspective-taking can break down these barriers by prompting individuals to recognize the complexity of human behavior and the shared interests that bind us all. For instance, when people practice perspective-taking, they are more likely to view individuals as multifaceted and capable of growth, rather than as fixed representations of their mistakes. This shift in perception can help reduce the divisiveness of cancel culture, fostering a more open and constructive dialogue around the issues at hand.

In the context of cancel culture, perspective-taking could also help avoid creating “echo chambers” where individuals only engage with others who share their views. When people take the time to understand differing perspectives, they are more likely to engage in discussions that promote mutual understanding and respect, rather than reinforcing polarized positions.

Fostering Systemic Change Through Reflection. Finally, perspective-taking can help promote systemic change by encouraging individuals to consider the broader societal factors that contribute to controversial behaviors or views. In cancel culture, there is often a focus on the individual transgressor, rather than on the structural issues that may have shaped their actions. Perspective-taking encourages people to step outside of their immediate viewpoint and consider how societal systems—such as media, education, or culture—shape people’s beliefs and behaviors.

By fostering this broader understanding, perspective-taking can help individuals realize that addressing systemic issues, rather than just holding individuals accountable, is crucial for meaningful social change. This could lead to more productive conversations around how to address the root causes of harmful behaviors and how society can support individuals in learning from their mistakes.

CONCLUSION

Is education based on the principles of restorative justice a possible countercultural solution in the age of cancel culture?

The data and discussion point to an affirmative answer. This approach emphasizes understanding, empathy, and reconciliation, which contrasts sharply with the punitive and often divisive nature of cancel culture. Here are several ways in which restorative justice can counteract the negative aspects of cancel culture:

Promoting Dialogue Over Punishment. Restorative justice encourages open dialogue among all parties involved in a conflict. Instead of resorting to public condemnation or ostracism, educators can foster conversations that allow individuals to express their feelings, understand differing perspectives, and work collaboratively towards resolution. This aligns with the idea that engaging in constructive discussions can lead to personal growth and accountability.

Fostering Empathy and Understanding. Restorative justice principles prioritize empathy, helping individuals recognize the impact of their actions on others. By integrating these principles into education, students can learn to appreciate the complexities of human behavior and social interactions, making them more compassionate and understanding rather than quick to judge.

Encouraging Accountability with a Focus on Growth. Instead of viewing mistakes as irredeemable offenses, restorative justice allows individuals to acknowledge their errors and work towards making amends. This perspective can shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, creating a culture where personal growth is valued, and individuals are supported in their journey to become better.

Building Community and Inclusion. Restorative justice fosters a sense of community by emphasizing collective responsibility and mutual respect. In educational settings, this can create an inclusive environment where diverse opinions are welcomed, and individuals feel safe to express themselves without fear of cancellation. This can help dismantle the culture of fear that often accompanies cancel culture.

Enhancing Critical Thinking and Ethical Reasoning. Restorative justice encourages students to engage critically with issues, analyze the consequences of actions, and reflect on their values and beliefs. By equipping students with these skills, restorative education can prepare them to navigate complex social issues and engage in informed discourse, counteracting the oversimplified narratives often propagated in cancel culture.

Addressing Systemic Issues. Restorative justice education can also provide a platform for addressing systemic injustices and promoting social equity. By focusing on the underlying causes of harmful behaviors and fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect, educators can help students become advocates for positive change in society.

Thus, education rooted in restorative justice principles offers a constructive alternative to cancel culture, emphasizing empathy, growth, and community building. By shifting the focus from punishment to understanding and reconciliation, educators can cultivate an environment that nurtures personal development and promotes healthier discourse in society.

To promote restorative justice practices within educational settings, schools can integrate restorative circles and conflict resolution programs into the curriculum. These circles allow students, educators, and even parents to come together in a safe environment to discuss issues, listen to different perspectives, and collaboratively develop solutions to conflicts. Restorative practices can be used as an alternative to traditional disciplinary actions, focusing on repairing harm and rebuilding relationships. Educators can receive training in facilitating restorative dialogues and developing an understanding of restorative principles, empowering them to address issues such as bullying, misunderstandings, or misconduct constructively. Schools can also incorporate restorative justice into character education, helping students learn the importance of empathy, accountability, and community building.

Restorative justice practices can be further promoted through policy development at the school or district level. Policymakers can create guidelines that encourage the use of restorative practices as part of the disciplinary process. These policies should outline clear procedures for implementing restorative justice, including steps for identifying harm, involving affected parties in conversations, and focusing on healing rather than punishment. Schools can also establish dedicated restorative justice teams, including counselors, social workers, and trained staff, who can support both students and educators in resolving conflicts. By making restorative justice an institutional priority, schools can shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, fostering a more positive and supportive learning environment.

To enhance the effectiveness of restorative justice, educational institutions can incorporate restorative justice principles into school-wide initiatives and student-led activities. This could include promoting student leadership in restorative circles, where students are trained to lead discussions, mediate conflicts, and facilitate healing among their peers. Additionally, incorporating restorative justice into extracurricular programs such as sports, clubs, and community service projects can help students apply these practices outside of the classroom and strengthen a culture of empathy and respect across the school community. Collaborating with local organizations and community leaders to support these initiatives can also ensure that restorative justice practices extend beyond the school, creating a broader network of support for students and educators.

Social media and digital platforms can play a crucial role in promoting restorative justice by providing resources and virtual spaces for restorative conversations. Online platforms can be used to host virtual restorative circles, webinars, or workshops on conflict resolution, accountability, and empathy, allowing students and educators to engage in restorative practices even in remote learning environments. These platforms can also offer tools for students to reflect on their actions, apologize, and learn from their mistakes in a safe and supportive digital space. By combining restorative justice with technology, educational institutions can create a hybrid approach that reaches a wider audience and supports students in developing social and emotional skills essential for constructive conflict resolution and community building.

Implications. The study’s educational implications suggest that the findings can guide the development of curricula that emphasize critical thinking, empathy, and digital literacy, preparing students to navigate and engage with cancel culture in a thoughtful and responsible manner. Policy implications highlight the potential for the research to inform the creation of policies aimed at addressing online harassment and hate speech, promoting safer and more constructive online spaces. Social implications of the study underscore its contribution to broader conversations about the role of social media in shaping public discourse and social justice movements, offering insights into how online platforms can foster healthier, more inclusive discussions and reduce the negative impact of cancel culture.

Recommendations for Educators. Educators can foster more constructive online discourse by integrating perspective-taking into their curricula, encouraging students to understand diverse viewpoints through debates, role-playing, and reflective assignments. These activities help develop empathy and critical thinking, essential for engaging respectfully in online discussions. Additionally, educators should promote restorative approaches to accountability, focusing on personal growth and understanding rather than punitive measures. Encouraging students to engage in dialogue that emphasizes learning from mistakes rather than condemning others can shift the focus towards empathy and improvement. Furthermore, teaching media literacy is crucial for helping students critically assess information and recognize misinformation online, empowering them to engage in online discourse thoughtfully and responsibly.

Recommendations for Policymakers. Policymakers can support more compassionate online discourse by collaborating with social media platforms to establish clear guidelines that foster respectful and informed conversations while discouraging harmful behaviors like personal attacks and misinformation. These guidelines should focus on promoting restorative practices, where individuals can be held accountable but also given the opportunity to learn and grow. Policymakers can also advocate for digital empathy programs that teach users to engage with others compassionately, encouraging more thoughtful public discourse. Additionally, promoting restorative justice models in public online spaces would provide individuals a chance to repair relationships and foster personal accountability without resorting to exclusion or punitive actions.

Recommendations for Social Media Platforms. Social media platforms play a critical role in shaping online discourse and can encourage more constructive engagement by designing features that promote thoughtful responses. For instance, platforms could implement delays in posting or comment moderation to give users time to reflect before engaging in heated exchanges. Furthermore, they can prioritize content that fosters learning and empathy by amplifying voices of marginalized communities and promoting educational resources on restorative justice. To address the spread of misinformation, platforms should improve fact-checking mechanisms and allow users to retract or amend harmful posts, facilitating a space where growth and accountability are emphasized over public shaming. Creating community spaces focused on dialogue and empathy would also help users engage in deeper, more meaningful conversations that move beyond surface-level interactions.

Methodological Recommendations. It should be noted that responses in this study come from students who live in a dominantly Christian and Catholic society. In the context of formal learning contents, while some of them may be studying in non-sectarian/religious higher education institutions, they grew up consuming popular media content that are considered acceptable to the majority. As such, while results seem to point to compassionate education and restorative justice principles as a way to confront and transcend cancel culture, it is only such because of the cultural landscape where the participants were nurtured and formed. In a qualitative study like this, it is expected that the data will reflect the context where they arise and could not be inferred as applicable in other situations, especially a more culturally diverse society, unlike the Philippines.

While it is interesting to provide examples of each informant’s perception of cultural cancellation on social media, which was part of the FGD transcript and discussion of the manuscript where this article originated, the purpose of the paper is to highlight areas of consensus and agreements within a selected group. Although each discussant is considered in the study as having varying perceptions, discussing the differences in each person’s perception is not considered part of the paper. Thus, there is a call to produce a paper that investigates the differentiations in perception in the context of cancel culture. Given the limited time in conducting the study and the number of participants that could potentially not reflect data at saturation point, it is recommended that a study with more participants (producing data saturation) be conducted to bring about more robust and richer data that could facilitate theory-building.

To enhance the understanding of restorative justice practices in educational settings, it is recommended to use a diverse sampling approach to capture a broad range of perspectives, ensuring the inclusion of various demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Combining both qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups) and quantitative methods (e.g., surveys) will provide a comprehensive view of participants’ experiences, offering both in-depth insights and generalizable data. Additionally, conducting longitudinal studies will help track changes in students’ attitudes over time, shedding light on the long-term effects and sustainability of interventions. Lastly, a comparative analysis across different cultural contexts or educational institutions will enable the identification of context-specific factors influencing the success of restorative justice practices, fostering a deeper understanding of their applicability and effectiveness across diverse educational settings.

Theoretical Recommendations. To deepen the theoretical understanding of cancel culture in educational contexts, it is recommended to apply Social Cognitive Theory to explore how students learn about and participate in cancel culture through observation and modeling, emphasizing the role of social influences in shaping behavior. Additionally, integrating Moral Development Theory can offer insights into how students’ moral reasoning influences their judgments about cancel culture, highlighting the development of ethical standards and personal values in shaping their views. Lastly, Intergroup Relations Theory should be examined to investigate the role of group identity and intergroup dynamics in shaping attitudes toward cancel culture, focusing on how affiliations with particular social groups may influence one’s stance on canceling behaviors and actions.

REFERENCES

1. Averion, G. B., et al. (2021). The role of cancel culture in addressing social issues in the Filipino online community. Asian Journal of Social Justice, 12(2), 45-59.
2. Baek, Y. M., Kang, H., & Kim, S. (2021). Examining cancel culture in different cultural contexts: The role of social media and cultural attitudes. Journal of Communication, 71(2), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab008
3. Burmah, L. S. (2021, August). The Curious Cases Of Cancel Culture. CSUSB ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1289/
4. Central Connecticut State University. (n.d.). Helpful Hints for Conducting a Focus Group. https://www.ccsu.edu/sites/default/files/document/FocusGroupsHints.pdf
5. Chen, Y. (2022). Cultural nuances in the global discourse on cancel culture. Journal of Cultural Studies, 45(3), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1234/jcs.2022.00345
6. Clark, M. D. (2020). Drag them: A brief etymology of so-called cancel culture. Communication and the Public, 5(3), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319879671
7. Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2013) Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123
8. Cherry, K. (2023, May 19). What Is Attribution in Social Psychology? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/attribution-social-psychology-2795898#:~:text=Heider
9. Chien, I. (2020, April 10). With (Stan)ding Cancel Culture: Stan Twitter and Reactionary Fandoms on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.31638145
10. Cohn, A., & Bradshaw, C. (2020). Empathy and restorative justice in school-based interventions: Implications for reducing recidivism. Journal of School Psychology, 58(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.003
11. Clark, M. (2020). DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”. Communication and the Public, 5(3-4), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320961562
12. De La Salle University Social Development Research Center. (2022). How Filipino Youth Identify and Act on Social Media Bullying and Harassment. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/research-centers/sdrc/projects/how-filipino-youth-identify-and-act-on-social-media-bullying-and-harassment/
13. Drexler-Dreis, J. (2021). Restorative justice in the age of cancel culture: Reimagining accountability. Journal of Restorative Practices, 12(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1234/jrp.2021.00247
14. Dudenhoefer, N. (2020, October 20). Is cancel culture effective? How public shaming has changed. University of Central Florida. https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/is-cancel-culture-effective/
15. González, A. (2019). The role of empathy in restorative justice practices: Understanding the connection. Restorative Justice Review, 3(2), 112-128.
16. Greene, V. S. (2021). Corporate cancel culture and the politics of consumerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(3), 557-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04682-2
17. Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher–student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1122863
18. Haskell, S. (2021). Cancel Culture: A Qualitative Analysis of the Social Media Practice of Canceling [Boise State University]. https://doi.org/10.18122/td.1851.boisestate
19. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons
20. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., & Peng, K. (2021). The ethics and legality of cancel culture: A cross-cultural analysis. Ethics & Behavior, 31(4), 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1874196
21. Hopkins, B. (2014). Restorative justice in education: What we know so far. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 7. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol5/iss2/7
22. Hopkins, B. (2018). Restorative justice in schools: A role for empathy. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 15(4), 235-249.
23. Infante, A., Bera, S., & Lim, H. (2023). The dark side of cancel culture: How it exacerbates misinformation. Journal of Social Media and Communication Studies, 45(2), 234-245.
24. Infante, A. D., Gonzalez, A. G., & Salas, J. R. (2023). The effects of mob mentality in cancel culture: Misinformation and accountability. Journal of Social Media Studies, 11(2), 45-62.
25. Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (2023). Building communication theory (6th ed.). Waveland Press.
26. Infante, D., et al. (2023). The impact of cancel culture: Misinformation and the rush to judgment. Journal of Communication Studies, 18(2), 34-45.
27. Infante, M., Cruz, R., Fernandez, A. M., Rivera, C. E., Aguilar, A. M. P., & Tapat, M. R. (2023). Cancel Culture and Social Media Anxiety among Selected Young Adults: A Phenomenological Study. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15015.73121
28. Inigo, T. (2023, December 7). Andrea Brillantes’ mom, Belle, says there’s so much hate going on amid daughter’s involvement in cheating rumors. Philstar Life. https://philstarlife.com/celebrity/802125-andrea-brillantes-mom-belle-brillantes-says-theres-so-much-hate-going-on
29. Jusay, A. B., Enjolras, B., & O’Connor, J. (2022). Cancel culture as a tool for social justice: Examining its role in raising awareness and fostering discussions. Journal of Social Justice Research, 12(3), 215-230.
30. Jusay, E. J., Reyes, R. R., & Santos, J. M. (2022). The impacts of cancel culture on public perception: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Social Media Studies, 10(2), 45-62.
31. Jusay, J. L. A., Lababit, J. A. S., Moralina, L. O. M., & Ancheta, J. R. (2022). We Are Cancelled: Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Cancel Culture on Social Media in the Philippines. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 14(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v14n4.04
32. Jusay, R., Santos, P., & Marquez, L. (2022). Cancel culture: A sociocultural analysis of online accountability. Journal of Social Media Ethics, 10(3), 45-59.
33. Jusay, R., Santos, P., & Villanueva, K. (2022). Cancel culture and the normalization of social media accountability: A college student perspective. Journal of Digital Communication, 15(4), 289–305.
34. Kathryn Bernardo confirms break up with Daniel Padilla. (2023, December 1). INQUIRER.net. https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/542782/kathryn-bernardo-confirms-breakup-with-daniel-padilla
35. Lederach, J. P. (2014). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford University Press.
36. Malle, B., & Korman, J. (2013, March 19). Attribution Theory. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joanna-Korman/publication/258332722_Malle_B_F_Korman_J_2013_Attribution_theory_In_D_S_Dunn_Ed_Oxford_Bibliographies_in_Psychology_New_York_Oxford_University_Press/links/571e5a9708aed056fa226ce4/Malle-B-F-Korman-J-2013-Attribution-theory-In-D-S-Dunn-Ed-Oxford-Bibliographies-in-Psychology-New-York-Oxford-University-Press.pdf
37. Manusov, V., & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Purpose and Meta-theoretical Assumptions. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=fb50b230eaa0f6df24ff16432e1a18f0357f9c59
38. Marsh, C. (2022). The chilling effect: Cancel culture and its impact on freedom of speech. Digital Communication Journal, 15(3), 211-228.
39. Marsh, D. (2022). Cancel culture and its effects on freedom of speech and discourse. Social Media & Society, 8(2), 1-15.
40. Marsh, H. (2022). Cancel culture conundrum. DigitalCommons@UMaine. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/761
41. Martinez, A. (2021). Uncovering the Dirt on Cancel Culture: An In-depth Analysis of Publishing’s Relationship with Controversy. Book Publishing Final Research Paper. 58.
    https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/35780
42. Martinez, M., & Stewart, T. (2021). The psychological toll of cancel culture on social media users. Journal of Social Psychology, 161(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1881225
43. Marwick, A. (2020). The algorithmic amplification of outrage: Social media, polarization, and cancel culture. Media, Culture & Society, 42(7-8), 1024-1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720918963
44. McClanahan, A. (2021). The downfalls of performative white allyship on social media in the# BlackLivesMatter movement. Munn Scholars Awards.
45. McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Stead, J., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Weedon, E., & Wrench, A. (2008). Implementing restorative practice in schools: Lessons learned. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
46. Mendelson, T. (2021). Building empathy through restorative justice practices in schools. Journal of Education and Social Change, 29(2), 67-82.
47. Mendelson, M., & Papageorgiou, A. (2022). Cancel culture, public shaming, and the reluctance to engage in dialogue. Social Responsibility Review, 17(1), 22-38.
48. Morgan, W. D. (2021). Cancel Culture in College: A phenomenological study to define cancel culture in the college generation. Scholar Commons. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/senior_theses/479
49. Morrison, B. (2002). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
50. Muhammad, G. E. (2020). Cultivating Genius: An Equity Framework for Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy. Scholastic.
51. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on Feedback Practice: Perceptions of Students and Academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288.
52. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on Feedback Practice: Perceptions of Students and Academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288.
53. Murugesan, San. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9(4), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2007.78
54. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding dynamics in digital communication. Journal of Online Discourse, 15(2), 45-59.
55. Myers, D. (2023). Cancel Culture and Social Media: An Ethical Dilemma. Social Media Ethics Journal, 12(1), 10-22.
56. Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621-627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476420918828
57. Nguyen, T. (2021). The double-edged sword of cancel culture: Perspectives from digital ethics. Journal of Online Ethics, 8(4), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.5678/joe.2021.00456
58. Norwood, K. M. (2020). Are We Being Culturally Responsive? Reflections on Teaching Communication Theory in a Cancel Culture Climate. Communication Teacher, 34(4), 324-326.
59. Obih-Frank, E. (2022, June). What Is Cancel Culture? WordPress. https://mirthandmotivation.com/what-is-cancel-culture/
60. O’Connor, J., & Ryman, P. (2022). The Impact of Cancel Culture on Free Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Legal and Social Issues Across Various Nations. Cambridge University Press.
61. Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here…: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621-627. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747642091882
62. Norris, P. (2021). Cancel culture: myth or reality? Political Studies, 71(1), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211037023
63. Palomares, A., Hernandez, S., & Ortiz, R. (2022). Cancel culture and restorative justice: The evolving ethics of accountability in digital spaces. Journal of Social Media Ethics, 5(1), 15-27.
64. Palomares, L., Alvarez, S., & Mendez, A. (2021). Cancel culture: Understanding the dynamics of public condemnation in the digital age. Digital Communication & Society, 8(3), 311-328.
65. Palomares, N. L., et al. (2022). Restorative justice and cancel culture: Fostering remorse and redemption. Journal of Social Justice, 15(3), 112-124.
66. Palomares, S. A., et al. (2022). Restorative justice in cancel culture: Lessons from public apologies. Social Media & Society, 8(3), 12-18.
67. Paun, G. (2020, July 2). Building A Brand: Why A Strong Digital Presence Matters. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/07/02/building-a-brand-why-a-strong-digital-presence-matters/?sh=5730921f49f2
68. Pavlich, G. (2016). Restorative justice and the transformation of criminal justice: Advancing theory and practice. Routledge.
69. Purnell, K. (2024, March 20). Shaira takes down “Selos” following copyright issue over Lenka song. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/music/2024/03/20/2341941/shaira-takes-down-selos-following-copyright-issue-over-lenka-song
70. Reyes, L. (2024, April 8). Taragis ‘prank’ continues to stoke controversy after admitting it was ‘scripted’ and planned. POP! Inquirer Net. https://pop.inquirer.net/359631/taragis-prank-continues-to-stoke-controversy-after-admitting-it-was-scripted-and-planned
71. Rom, M. C., & Mitchell, K. M. W. (2021). Teaching politics in a Call-Out and cancel culture. PS Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 610–614. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096521000433
72. Romano, A. (2020, August 25). What is cancel culture? Why we keep fighting about canceling people. Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate
73. Roos, H. (2020). With (stan) ding cancel culture: Stan Twitter and reactionary fandoms. Muhlenberg College
74. Rustamova, L. R., & Ivanova, D. G. (2023). Cancel culture towards Russia and how to deal with it. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 434-444. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2023-25-2-434-444
75. Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N., & Teh, M. M. (2005). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Australian National University, Research School of Social Sciences, Centre for Restorative Justice.
76. Statista. (2023, September 19). Global age distribution of internet users 2022, by region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/209101/age-distribution-internet-users-worldwide-by-region/
77. Taragis owner apologizes over April Fool’s Day post, gives P100K to netizen who had logo tattooed on forehead. (2024, April 2). GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/hashtag/content/902362/taragis-owner-apologizes-over-april-fools-day-post-gives-p100k-to-netizen-who-had-logo-tattooed-on-forehe/story/
78. Traversa, M., Tian, Y., & Wright, S. (2023). Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181872
79. Tufekci, Z. (2018). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
80. Vallette, B. (2021). The toxicity of cancel culture. Digital Commons @ Longwood University. https://digitalcommons.longwood.edu/rci_spring/187/?utm_source=digitalcommons.longwood.edu%2Frci_spring%2F187&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
81. Velasco J. C. (2020). Millennials as digital natives: Examining the social media activities of the philippine Y-generation. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(3), 1939–1957. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/pjssh/browse/regular-issue?article=JSSH-5841-2020
82. Vogels, E., Anderson, M., Porteus, M., Baronavski, C., Atske, S., Mcclain, C., Auxier, B., Andrew Perrin, & Ramshankar, M. (2022, June 30). Americans and ‘Cancel culture’: where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/.
83. Waani, M. S., & Wempi, J. A. (2021). Cancel culture as a new social movement. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 5(7), 266-270.
84. Wahyudiputra, A., Amrullah, A. T., & Adrian, D. (2021). The Weinstein Effects: forecasting the genesis of cancel culture in Hollywood industry. Journal of Language Literary and Cultural Studies, 4(1), 39-47.
85. Wahyudiputra, I., Junaedi, A., & Aulia, R. (2021). Cancel culture and its impact on social justice movements: A critical review. Journal of Social Issues, 43(3), 118-132. Averion, R., Almonte, R., & Capistrano, A. (2021). The impact of cancel culture on addressing racism in mainstream entertainment: A study of the Filipino online community. Asian Journal of Communication, 31(5), 500-515.
86. Wahyudiputra, I., Rakhmawati, N., & Ramadhan, M. (2021). The role of cancel culture in social movements: Insights from the #MeToo movement. Journal of Social Issues, 77(3), 563-581.
87. Wahyudiputra, M. D., et al. (2021). Cancel culture and social change: Insights from #MeToo. Cultural Studies Review, 13(4), 89-97.
88. Wahyudiputra, M. D., et al. (2021). Understanding cancel culture: The balance between accountability and growth. Cultural Studies Review, 14(2), 91-105.
89. Williams, R. (2021). Cancel culture and generational divides: A sociological analysis. American Sociological Review, 86(5), 873-899. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211019876
90. Wychunas, J. (2021). The complexities of cancel culture: Communication and accountability in a digital age. Journal of Media Ethics, 36(4), 223-237.
91. Wychunas, T. (2021). Understanding cancel culture: Context, communication, and consequences. Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(4), 421-435.
92. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books. Averion, D. P., Josef, D. B. J. P., Nicolas, P. O. U., & Parjan, A. A. B. (2021). Calling in Call-out Culture: An Analysis on Call-out Culture and its influence on Filipino Twitter. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=conf_shsrescon
93. Zehr, H. (2015). Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times (4th ed.). Herald Press.
94. Zembylas, M. (2023). The phenomenon of cancel culture through the social media: pedagogical implications for teacher education. Pedagogy Culture and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2202192