INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Cancel Culture as a Stressor: Implications for Student’s Resilience  
and Coping  
Hesborn Chonge., Njeri Kiaritha, and Ruth Okapi  
Department of Psychology, United World College, Limburg  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100250  
Received: 21 November 2025; Accepted: 28 November 2025; Published: 06 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Cancel culture, broadly defined as the collective withdrawal of support, trust, or acceptance from an individual  
or group in response to perceived transgressions, has become increasingly visible in educational institutions.  
While often framed as a tool for accountability, it also functions as a form of social exclusion that shapes the  
psychosocial experiences of students. This paper explores the implications of cancel culture as a stressor, with  
particular attention to its impact on student resilience and coping. Drawing on existing qualitative research,  
theoretical perspectives on resilience, and psychological frameworks of stress and coping, this literature review  
interrogates how students experience, interpret, and navigate the pressures of cancellation in academic settings.  
The review highlights three key dimensions: The psychological impact of cancel culture on identity, belonging,  
and self-esteem; the coping strategies (adaptive and maladaptive) that students employ when faced with  
reputational threats and peer rejection; and the role of institutional culture in either amplifying or buffering these  
stressors. By synthesizing insights from psychology and sociocultural studies, the paper argues that cancel  
culture in schools and universities can act as both a catalyst for resilience and a risk factor for psychological  
distress. Ultimately, this duality raises a dilemma: should educational institutions treat cancel culture primarily  
as a legitimate form of student voice and accountability, or as a psychosocial hazard that undermines well-being?  
Key Terms: Cancel Culture; Resilience; Coping strategies; Stress; student well-being.  
INTRODUCTION  
In recent years, educational institutions have witnessed growing attention to cancel culture, a phenomenon  
commonly understood as the collective withdrawal of support, trust, or acceptance from individuals or groups  
due to perceived transgressions, often amplified through social or digital networks. While much of the popular  
discourse frames cancel culture as a mechanism for accountability or moral growth, academic scholarship is  
increasingly unpacking its darker side: how it functions as a psychosocial stressor for students, with potential  
consequences for identity, belonging, and well-being (Zembylas, 2024; Martinez & Stewart, 2021).  
Resilience, the capacity to adapt, recover, and thrive amid adversity, is central within psychosocial perspectives  
in education, understood both as process and outcome (Wang et al., 2025; Steel et al., 2024). Coping strategies,  
whether adaptive or maladaptive, mediate the relationship between such stressors and student outcomes (Berru  
Amalianita et al., 2025). While much research has examined academic stress, social isolation, and mental health  
during crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), there is limited qualitative literature explicitly addressing how  
students experience cancel culture: how they interpret it, narrate it, and deploy strategies for resilience in the  
face of socio-academic exclusion.  
This paper addresses that gap. It seeks to synthesize what recent literature reveals about three intertwined  
questions:  
a) How does cancel culture impact students’ psychological functioning, particularly identity, self-esteem, and  
belonging?  
b) What coping or resilience-fostering strategies emerge?  
Page 3141  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
c) How can institutional culture amplify or buffer the stress associated with cancellation?  
By centering psychosocial perspectives in education and employing a qualitative literature review, this work  
positions cancel culture not merely as a social phenomenon but as a complex set of interactions involving power,  
belonging, stigmatization, and student voice. Importantly, this duality generates a core dilemma: although cancel  
culture may serve legitimate ends—accountability, justice, and moral development—it may also inflict harm  
when peer judgments or institutional responses become punitive, when due process is lacking, or when  
individuals are socially isolated. Such harm can undermine the psychological well-being that schools aim to  
foster. In response, this review argues that educational institutions must cultivate practices that balance  
accountability with empathy, promote restorative justice, and develop inclusive support systems so that student  
well-being is protected alongside the values cancel culture seeks to uphold.  
Cancel Culture in Educational Contexts  
Cancel culture, broadly defined as the withdrawal of support from individuals or groups perceived to have  
violated prevailing social norms, has increasingly permeated educational contexts (Nguyen, 2021). While much  
scholarship initially located cancel culture within political or media landscapes, schools and universities have  
become microcosms where these dynamics unfold. Within classrooms and campus communities, students and  
staff are held accountable not only for academic performance but also for their alignment with dominant social  
or moral values (Cisneros & Nakayama, 2021). This shift highlights how educational spaces are no longer neutral  
grounds but contested arenas where power, identity, and morality intersect.  
In practice, cancel culture in schools and universities often manifests in both digital and face-to-face interactions.  
For example, when a student or teacher expresses a controversial opinion, the response may quickly escalate  
from disagreement to coordinated ostracism, petitions, or even formal complaints. Research by Liu and Steele  
(2022) shows that digital platforms such as class WhatsApp groups, Discord servers, or university forums have  
amplified the speed and reach of cancel culture dynamics. In such cases, the disciplinary mechanism does not  
necessarily emerge from institutional policies but from peer-driven accountability, with peers acting as both  
judges and enforcers of communal norms.  
The psychological impact on students is profound. Fear of cancellation can increase anticipatory anxiety, social  
withdrawal, and reluctance to participate in classroom dialogue (Dettmar, 2021). Students report engaging in  
“self-censorship” to avoid reputational harm, which undermines the very goals of higher-order learning such as  
critical thinking, perspective-taking, and intellectual risk-taking (Rogers, 2022). For students directly targeted,  
the consequences are more severe: loss of friendships, stigmatization, and diminished self-worth. A 2023 survey  
on student activism in U.S. universities indicated that those who experienced cancellation were more likely to  
report symptoms of depression and lower academic motivation compared to peers who had not been targeted  
(Warner, 2023).  
Cancel culture does not affect only students. Educators, too, experience its weight. Teachers whose pedagogical  
choices are perceived as insensitive or misaligned with current socio-political expectations may be subjected to  
online harassment, professional scrutiny, or calls for dismissal. One notable case occurred in the United States  
where a professor faced petitions and protests after showing a controversial film in class (Johnson, 2021). While  
the film was presented as part of a critical analysis, the reaction highlighted how educational spaces can become  
volatile when trust between teachers and learners breaks down. Such incidents create a climate of professional  
insecurity, where educators feel pressured to sanitize content, avoid difficult topics, and minimize intellectual  
controversy. This dynamic undermines academic freedom and narrows the scope of inquiry that is possible  
within schools and universities.  
At the same time, scholars caution against framing cancel culture exclusively in negative terms. From one  
perspective, cancel culture provides marginalized students with tools to challenge oppressive structures and call  
out harmful practices. For example, Morris (2021) argues that cancel culture in educational institutions has at  
times served as a catalyst for meaningful reform, such as prompting schools to address racial bias in curricula or  
discriminatory disciplinary practices. In this sense, cancel culture can be interpreted as a form of collective  
resistance that empowers vulnerable groups to demand accountability.  
Page 3142  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Yet the challenge lies in the absence of restorative processes. Without mechanisms for dialogue, reflection, and  
reconciliation, cancel culture often devolves into punitive exclusion rather than constructive transformation  
(Rogers, 2022). This is particularly troubling in education, where the mission is not only to transmit knowledge  
but also to nurture resilience, empathy, and critical citizenship. Thus, cancel culture in schools presents a  
dilemma: it can both serve as a mechanism for social justice and, paradoxically, create environments of fear,  
silence, and division.  
Ultimately, cancel culture in educational contexts cannot be dismissed as a passing trend. It represents a cultural  
phenomenon with deep psychological and institutional implications. Its dual character—empowering some  
while silencing others—raises urgent questions about how schools and universities should navigate  
accountability, free expression, and well-being in increasingly polarized environments. As Nguyen (2021)  
emphasizes, the challenge is not whether cancel culture exists, but how educational systems can respond to it in  
ways that preserve dialogue, promote inclusivity, and safeguard the psychological health of all stakeholders.  
Cancel Culture as a Stressor for Students  
The discourse on cancel culture within educational institutions is not merely abstract; it is lived daily by students  
navigating social, academic, and digital spaces. In U.S. high schools, for instance, cases have emerged where  
students were “canceled” by their peers for expressing controversial opinions online or making insensitive  
remarks. While disciplinary responses have historically been the domain of school administrators, the digital age  
has amplified peer-driven accountability, where reputational consequences are swift and often unforgiving  
(Nguyen, 2021). Such dynamics intensify stress for adolescents, as reputational harm in this developmental  
period is closely tied to identity formation and belonging (Stevens & Prinstein, 2021). When students perceive  
that a single misstep can lead to ostracism, they may experience heightened anxiety, emotional withdrawal, or  
defensive self-censorship, thereby compromising both their social learning and academic engagement.  
Beyond the U.S., cancel culture in schools intersects with broader socio-political currents. In the United  
Kingdom, debates about decolonizing the curriculum have seen students push for certain texts, symbols, and  
practices to be removed, sparking resistance from other community members (Wong, 2022). For some students,  
such activism represents empowerment and agency, but for others, particularly those whose views or identities  
are aligned with the “canceled” content, it fosters an atmosphere of polarization and fear. The psychological  
impact of this polarization is often overlooked. Students caught in these cultural battles may feel pressured to  
conform to dominant peer narratives or risk exclusion. In such contexts, cancel culture becomes not only a  
stressor but a potential barrier to the kind of open, dialogical learning that schools strive to cultivate.  
In non-Western settings, cancel culture assumes culturally specific forms. In parts of Africa, for example,  
student-led boycotts or social media-driven campaigns against peers or teachers accused of discriminatory  
behavior mirror global patterns but are also entwined with struggles around identity, cultural authenticity, and  
power (Molefe, 2021). While these actions can amplify marginalized voices, they can also reinforce binaries of  
inclusion versus exclusion. Research shows that students in such environments often experience moral  
dilemmas, supporting justice and accountability while simultaneously fearing the psychological toll of ostracism  
if they dissent (Chukwuorji et al., 2022). The result is a fragile social balance where resilience is continuously  
tested.  
Psychologically, cancel culture can be conceptualized as a modern form of peer-enforced social regulation, one  
that blends punitive justice with community-driven accountability. Unlike formal disciplinary measures,  
however, it often lacks restorative components, making reintegration difficult. Studies on adolescent stress  
highlight that chronic exposure to peer rejection and social humiliation is strongly associated with increased risk  
for depression, anxiety disorders, and even self-harm (Rapee et al., 2020). Thus, the stress induced by  
cancellation is not trivial; it is embedded in relational ecosystems where identity, belonging, and resilience  
collide. Students forced into defensive strategies, whether hiding their opinions, over-conforming, or  
withdrawing socially, may appear resilient in the short term, but such coping often erodes long-term  
psychological well-being.  
Page 3143  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Taken together, these cases suggest that cancel culture as experienced in educational institutions is a double-  
edged sword. While it promotes accountability and reflects students’ capacity for moral agency, it also generates  
stress, shame, and exclusion. For educators and psychologists, the challenge lies in discerning how to transform  
these moments into opportunities for restorative dialogue, resilience-building, and the cultivation of empathy  
rather than alienation.  
School Climate and Belonging  
Across education systems, school climate- the constellation of norms, relationships, teaching practices, safety,  
and supports that characterize daily life in a school- functions as the social ecology in which learning and  
development occur. Within that ecology, belonging, broadly defined as feeling accepted, valued, and connected  
within a school community, is consistently identified as a predictor of academic success, motivation, and  
psychological well-being (Allen et al., 2023; OECD, 2023; Štremfel et al., 2024). In a systematic review of 86  
studies, Štremfel et al. (2024) showed that belonging both predicts outcomes such as achievement, behaviour,  
and psychological well-being, and is predicted by malleable school-level levers such as teacher relationships,  
safety, fair treatment, and inclusive pedagogy. This bi-directionality positions belonging as a keystone construct  
for improvement efforts. Yet, when a student is “canceled”, whether through peer exclusion, social media  
backlash, or silencing in class, the immediate effect is often the erosion of this sense of connection. What was  
once a secure environment becomes fraught with fear of judgment, rejection, or loss of peer support.  
The international evidence base since the COVID-19 pandemic adds texture. The Programme for International  
Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, spanning 81 systems, was the first large-scale study to collect performance  
and well-being data both before and after pandemic disruptions. Beyond test scores, the OECD’s “Happy Life  
Dashboard” tracked facets such as engagement, relationships, and belonging (OECD, 2023a). Countries  
reporting shorter or less widespread closures saw stable or improving belonging, with Japan highlighted as an  
example, suggesting that school continuity and re-entry conditions mattered for socio-emotional recovery, not  
just academic outcomes. Cross-national variation is evident: in New Zealand, 68% of 15-year-olds reported that  
they “feel they belong” at school compared to the 75% OECD average, while Norway paired strong safety  
indicators with reduced bullying exposure where belonging improved (OECD, 2023b). These results caution  
systems to monitor belonging alongside achievement when judging post-pandemic recovery.  
Belonging’s pathways are increasingly well specified. Identity-safe classroom practices, such as high  
expectations with high relational support, inclusive materials, and routine opportunities for student voice, are  
associated with improved engagement and socio-emotional outcomes, particularly for students from  
marginalized groups (Learning Policy Institute, 2023). Reports synthesizing this work argue that “whole-child”  
climates, which intentionally cultivate relationships, relevance, and emotional safety, yield both motivation gains  
and achievement gains by reducing threat and increasing meaningful participation (WestEd, 2024). This  
complements policy-focused reviews calling for school-wide conditions such as predictable routines, restorative  
responses to conflict, and teacher collaboration time that enable classroom-level belonging practices to take root  
(Štremfel et al., 2024).  
The mental health link is robust and consequential. Prospective and longitudinal studies indicate that higher  
school belonging in adolescence predicts lower anxiety, depression, and stress in young adulthood (Allen et al.,  
2023). Newer work also examines belonging as a mediator between experiences of discrimination, such as racial  
microaggressions, and academic or mental health outcomes (Song et al., 2024). This clarifies why climate  
reforms must pair universal practices with targeted, equity-attentive supports. In other words, belonging is not  
merely “nice to have”; it is a protective factor that can interrupt risk pathways when schools address safety,  
connectedness, and fair treatment systematically.  
Importantly, the drivers of belonging are actionable. The recent literature converges on several levers: relational  
pedagogy (frequent formative feedback, interest in each student’s learning, advisory or homeroom structures  
that make time for connection); predictable, restorative discipline that minimizes exclusion and emphasizes  
reintegration; student voice in classroom norms, assessment choices, and school-wide decision-making; coherent  
SEL embedded in academic instruction; and adult culture that mirrors what schools expect of students, including  
collaboration, recognition, and psychological safety for staff (Learning Policy Institute, 2023; WestEd, 2024).  
Page 3144  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
The PISA 2022 results also flag a warning: students’ perceptions of receiving “extra help when needed” have  
declined over the last decade in many countries, signaling that teacher workload pressures can erode the very  
relationships that sustain belonging (OECD, 2023a).  
Finally, context matters. International schools and diverse urban systems face belonging challenges, such as  
language barriers, cultural distance, and high mobility, but also have powerful assets, including multilingualism,  
intercultural curricula, and service learning. Climate work that honors identity through culturally responsive  
pedagogy and multilingual family engagement, while ensuring safety through anti-bullying and bias incident  
procedures, helps transform diversity from a stressor into a source of collective efficacy (Štremfel et al., 2024).  
Cross-system reviews emphasize that belonging must be measured with reliable tools, co-designed with students  
and staff, and iteratively improved, treating climate not as a slogan but as a continuous-improvement domain  
alongside instruction (OECD, 2023a). For educators, the dilemma lies in the dual role of belonging: it is both  
the resource that protects students and the very thing that cancel culture threatens to dismantle. Cancel culture  
weaponizes belonging by creating “in-groups” and “out-groups,” where inclusion is conditional on conforming  
to dominant views. In this sense, belonging becomes precarious, and resilience is tested not only by the  
experience of being cancelled but also by the anxiety of potentially becoming the next target  
Cancel Culture, Belonging, and Resilience: A Process Model  
When the cultural practice colloquially termed cancel culture enters schools, it does more than trigger a one-off  
conflict; it reorganizes the social ecology in which young people learn. Atypical episode begins with a perceived  
norm violation (a classroom remark, a post shared from a dorm, an ill-judged meme). Social media affordances-  
speed, scale, and permanence- amplify the event, turning private disapproval into a public call-out and, at times,  
a cascading “pile-on.” In educational communities, that acceleration collides with slower pastoral and  
disciplinary systems, producing a mismatch between the tempo of online outrage and the deliberative pace  
required for fair process. The educational stakes are high because these episodes unfold inside institutions that  
are charged with cultivating intellectual risk-taking, ethical growth, and civic participation, all of which depend  
on a baseline of psychological safety and mutual regard (OECD, 2023).  
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) helps to clarify why cancel episodes feel so destabilizing. SDT posits that  
flourishing depends on the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: relatedness (belonging), competence,  
and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Public shaming threatens all three simultaneously. First, it fractures  
relatedness: peers withdraw, online disapproval accumulates, and classroom interactions become wary. Second,  
competence is undermined as the target internalizes global judgments (“I am a bad person/student”) rather than  
specific, improvable feedback. Third, autonomy constricts because students learn that voicing uncertainty or  
testing ideas carries outsized reputational risk; they manage impressions instead of engaging in inquiry.  
Appraisals of procedural fairness further shape the emotional trajectory. When students perceive that adults rush  
to judgment or allow the online crowd to dictate outcomes, anger and cynicism dominate; when students see that  
context is heard, intent and impact are disentangled, and there is a pathway to repair, shame can be metabolized  
into accountability and growth (Ryan & Deci, 2020; OECD, 2023).  
Belonging sits at the center of this calculus. International evidence since the pandemic shows that students’ sense  
of belonging is tightly coupled with life satisfaction, engagement, and behavior across systems, and it is  
responsive to school-level levers such as safety, adult support, and fair treatment (OECD, 2023). In that light,  
cancel episodes are not merely individual crises; they are belonging shocks that ripple outward through  
classrooms, teams, and residences. Schools that maintain transparent norms, predictable responses, and spaces  
for dialogue are better able to contain the shock and restore relational trust. Conversely, where norms are  
ambiguous and adult responses are inconsistent, the same episode can depress participation far beyond those  
directly involved, cooling discussion and encouraging strategic self-censorship.  
The effects are not evenly distributed. A large body of contemporary work shows that belonging mediates the  
relationship between social positioning (e.g., racial/ethnic identity, language status, newcomer status) and  
academic and mental-health outcomes: when belonging is low, risk pathways intensify; when belonging is  
protected, achievement and well-being improve, particularly for marginalized groups (Allen et al., 2021). This  
means that the same cancel event can carry very different meanings depending on power dynamics and prior  
Page 3145  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
inclusion or exclusion. For some students, call-outs may operate as a long-denied route to accountability; for  
others, they confirm a pre-existing sense that the community is unforgiving. A process that is blind to identity  
risks compounding harm; one that is identity-attentive without being punitive can uphold standards while  
enlarging the circle of belonging.  
Resilience, in turn, is best understood not as a trait but as a multisystemic process- an evolving interaction  
between individual coping and the quality of the social and institutional supports available (Ungar, 2021; Masten,  
2021). After a cancellation, students commonly cycle through shame, fear, or anger. Whether they adapt or  
calcify depends on what the system makes possible. In a punitive pathway, ostracism hardens into status loss;  
students retreat, self-censor, or disengage; internalizing symptoms rise; and what appears superficially as  
“toughening up” is actually brittle resilience- protective in the short term but developmentally costly. In a  
restorative pathway, adults slow the cycle, surface perspectives, and separate condemnation of the act from  
exclusion of the person; peers practice perspective-taking; specific harms are addressed; and a re-entry is  
structured so that competence and autonomy can be rebuilt alongside relatedness. Syntheses of restorative  
practice in secondary schools consistently report improved connectedness, fewer conduct incidents, and better  
climate when these processes are embedded rather than episodic (Lodi et al., 2021).  
Taken together, the model posits a clear causal chain with feedback loops: trigger → amplification →  
institutional filters and identity moderators → SDT need threats and fairness appraisals → coping pathway →  
resilience outcome, which then feeds back to shape future climate.  
The practical implication is crisp: because belonging functions as both a resource and a regulator of coping, the  
decisive move for schools is not to suppress conflict, but to pre-commit to processes that keep people in  
community while addressing harm. That means visible norms for dialogue, graded accountability rather than  
permanent social exile, and guaranteed opportunities for learning and re-integration. In such climates, cancel  
episodes become demanding but teachable moments; absent those structures, they become corrosive, leaving  
students more cautious, less curious, and less able to participate in plural, democratic life.  
Figure 1: Cancel, belonging, resilience model  
This model is not a statistical pathway but a causal narrative, organized around stages of escalation and response.  
It was constructed inductively through a thematic review of studies published between 2020–2023 on student  
well-being, school climate, and resilience in the context of social media–driven controversies (e.g., Allen et al.,  
2021; OECD, 2023; Ungar, 2021). In line with qualitative research traditions, emphasis was placed on the  
Page 3146  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
interpretive logic linking concepts rather than on variable quantification. Each thematic strand- social media  
amplification, belonging as mediator, SDT need satisfaction, identity moderation, restorative versus punitive  
pathways- was identified across multiple sources and then woven into a single conceptual framework.  
The epistemological stance is critical-interpretivist. Cancel culture is treated not as a monolithic or universally  
negative phenomenon but as a contested social practice that can either erode or reinforce resilience depending  
on the institutional ecology. In presenting the model, the paper seeks to surface tensions rather than resolve them  
prematurely: belonging is both fragile and repairable, resilience can manifest as growth or as brittle adaptation,  
and fairness can be procedural or relational. This positioning allows for nuance, aligning with qualitative  
traditions that highlight meaning, context, and lived experience as central to research (Creswell & Poth, 2018).  
By mapping findings into a dynamic process model, the review produces a heuristic that educators, counsellors,  
and policy-makers can use to anticipate the ripple effects of cancellation episodes. Rather than offering  
prescriptive “best practices,” the framework invites contextual adaptation: schools may differ in cultural norms,  
resources, and governance structures, but the causal logic- trigger, amplification, belonging shock, coping  
pathway, resilience outcome- provides a transferable scaffold.  
Implications for Practice: From Model to Educational Interventions  
The process model outlined in Figure 1 underscores that cancel culture in educational institutions is not simply  
a matter of peer conflict but a systemic phenomenon with implications for belonging, resilience, and identity  
development. Translating this conceptual insight into practice requires schools to move beyond ad hoc crisis  
responses toward deliberate, proactive strategies.  
First, the model highlights the mediating role of belonging. When a cancellation episode threatens a student’s  
sense of inclusion, the key determinant of resilience is not the incident itself but whether the institutional  
environment provides credible avenues for repair. Schools therefore need to design structured belonging repair  
mechanisms, such as restorative dialogue circles, peer-support programs, or advisory systems where students  
can safely re-enter the community after conflict (Morrison & Vaandering, 2021). For example, advisory  
structures can be expanded to include “restorative advisory sessions” where both harmed and accused students  
engage in facilitated conversations that focus on perspective-taking and mutual responsibility.  
Second, the model demonstrates that identity dimensions moderate resilience outcomes. Marginalized students  
may experience cancellation as layered harm, both the immediate ostracism and the reactivation of broader social  
stigmas. Educational institutions committed to equity must therefore integrate culturally responsive and trauma-  
informed practices into their well-being policies (Brunzell, Waters, & Stokes, 2021). This may involve  
professional development for teachers on implicit bias in disciplinary practices, as well as embedding cultural  
humility into counselling frameworks. In international school contexts, where diversity is often celebrated  
rhetorically but unevenly supported structurally, this means ensuring that marginalized voices are explicitly  
represented in student councils, peer leadership groups, and feedback mechanisms.  
Third, the model shows that the pathway from belonging shock to resilience is contingent on the coping  
repertoire available. Students with access only to punitive or avoidance-based strategies are more likely to exhibit  
brittle forms of resilience, while those with restorative and reflective options can grow stronger. This calls for  
schools to expand their repertoire of coping interventions. Mindfulness programs, resilience workshops, and  
student-led well-being initiatives can be reframed not as generic mental health supports but as protective buffers  
specifically designed to address social ruptures caused by cancel culture. For instance, weekly well-being circles  
could integrate structured reflection on digital citizenship, equipping students to process online conflicts without  
resorting to exclusionary tactics.  
Fourth, the model foregrounds the importance of leadership in shaping school climate. When leaders frame  
cancellation episodes solely as disciplinary infractions, they reinforce punitive logics. By contrast, when leaders  
treat them as teachable moments for dialogue, empathy, and community repair, they set a cultural precedent for  
resilience. This implies that professional development for school leaders must explicitly address narrative  
framing of conflict. Workshops on restorative leadership, case-based simulations of online controversies, and  
Page 3147  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
scenario planning for social media crises could equip leaders with the skills to intervene constructively rather  
than reactively.  
Finally, the model suggests that resilience outcomes must be celebrated and made visible. Just as the escalation  
of cancellation is amplified through social media visibility, so too must the resolution of conflict and the  
restoration of belonging be publicly affirmed. Schools should institutionalize rituals of closure and recognition:  
community assemblies where reconciliations are acknowledged, newsletters that highlight stories of resilience,  
or awards for student initiatives that model empathy and dialogue. These visible signals re-anchor the  
community’s norms around growth and belonging, countering the punitive visibility of cancel culture with a  
restorative visibility that validates healing.  
Taken together, these implications transform the process model into a practical roadmap. The shift is from  
reactive crisis management toward a proactive well-being infrastructure that anticipates, mitigates, and repairs  
the fractures cancel culture creates. By embedding restorative practices, equity-sensitive supports, coping skill-  
building, leadership framing, and rituals of recognition, schools can ensure that cancellation episodes, while  
inevitable in a hyperconnected generation, do not derail students’ growth but instead become opportunities for  
resilience and deeper belonging.  
CONCLUSION  
This paper has examined cancel culture within educational contexts as more than a passing social trend; it is a  
psychosocial stressor that directly intersects with belonging, resilience, and student well-being. By framing  
cancellation as a “belonging shock,” we have argued that its impact is mediated through the degree to which  
schools provide credible, equitable, and restorative pathways back into community life. Drawing on resilience  
theory, restorative justice, and culturally responsive pedagogy, the discussion has highlighted how cancel culture  
challenges not only individual coping but also the institutional capacity to sustain a climate of trust and inclusion.  
The literature reviewed makes clear that while cancel culture often manifests digitally, its consequences are lived  
in the embodied, daily experiences of schooling: disrupted friendships, loss of peer support, academic  
disengagement, and, at times, long-term identity struggles. The process model developed here shows that  
resilience in the face of cancellation is neither automatic nor evenly distributed. Instead, it is contingent upon  
the resources-personal, relational, and institutional- that students can access in navigating their exclusion.  
Importantly, the implications for practice are not confined to responding to isolated incidents of cancellation.  
Rather, they call for a systemic reorientation of school culture: embedding restorative practices, investing in  
identity-affirming supports, cultivating leadership that frames conflict constructively, and making resilience  
achievements visible. Ultimately, this paper argues that cancel culture, far from being an external social  
phenomenon, is already shaping the relational dynamics of schools. Educational leaders, policymakers, and  
practitioners must recognize its presence and proactively design environments that transform cancellation from  
a moment of rupture into a catalyst for growth. By doing so, schools not only protect the well-being of their  
students but also model the very democratic, dialogic, and compassionate values they aspire to cultivate.  
REFERENCES  
1. Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2021). School belonging: Insights from the  
psychological sciences and implications for practice. Educational and Developmental Psychologist,  
38(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2020.1811552  
2. Allen, K.-A., et al. (2023). Adolescent school belonging and mental health outcomes in young adulthood:  
A prospective cohort study. Adolescent Research Review / Journal of Youth & Adolescence.  
SpringerLink.  
3. Amalianita, B. U. N., Kusaini, U. N., Yulianti, Y., Zubaidah, & Putri, Y. E. (2025). Analysis of coping  
mechanisms on student resilience in managing academic stress. International Journal of Education,  
Culture, and Society, 3(1), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.58578/ijecs.v3i1.4375  
4. Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2021). Trauma-informed positive education practice: Building  
student wellbeing and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 124–147.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12310  
Page 3148  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
5. Chukwuorji, J. C., Ifeagwazi, C. M., Ugwu, C., & Nwoke, M. B. (2022). Social exclusion and  
psychological well-being in African adolescents: The role of cultural identity and coping. Journal of  
Adolescence, 94, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2022.08.004  
6. Cisneros, J. D., & Nakayama, T. K. (2021). Contemporary rhetorics of race and resistance: Academic  
freedom, cancel culture, and student activism. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 18(3), 214–  
222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2021.1942957  
7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five  
approaches (4th Ed.). SAGE.  
8. Dettmar, K. D. (2021). Cancel culture in the classroom: The risks of silencing students. Liberal  
Education, 107(2), 24–31.  
9. Feyisa, B. R. (2022). Psychological resilience and coping strategies among undergraduate students.  
Journal of Youth Studies.  
10. Johnson, T. (2021). Academic freedom under fire: The implications of cancel culture for higher  
education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09416-4  
11. Learning Policy Institute. (2023). Creating identity-safe schools and classrooms. Learning Policy  
Institute.  
12. Liu, Y., & Steele, C. (2022). Social media, accountability, and cancel culture in education: Impacts on  
student engagement and anxiety. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 153–165.  
13. Lodi, E., Bevilacqua, L., & Milani, L. (2021). The use of restorative justice and restorative practices at  
school: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24),  
13155. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413155  
14. Masten, A. S. (2021). Resilience of children in the face of disaster: The importance of schools and  
communities.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1891781  
15. Molefe, T. O. (2021). Decoloniality and cancel culture in African student movements: Power, identity,  
and education. Critical Studies in Education, 62(5), 649–662.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1811682  
European  
Journal  
of  
Psychotraumatology,  
12(1),  
1891781.  
16. Morris, M. (2021). Cancel culture as resistance: Student activism and institutional accountability. Journal  
of Critical Education Policy Studies, 19(1), 88–106.  
17. Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2021). Restorative justice in education: Transforming teaching and  
learning through relational pedagogy. Routledge.  
18. Nguyen, T. (2021). Cancel culture, social media, and accountability in high school contexts. Youth &  
Society, 53(7), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20980747  
19. Nguyen, T. (2021). The cultural politics of cancellation: Rethinking accountability in the digital age.  
Cultural Studies, 35(6), 931–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2021.1907083  
20. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.  
21. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD  
Publishing.  
22. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Student well-being and engagement (Vols. I–III). OECD Publishing.  
23. Rapee, R. M., Oar, E. L., Johnco, C. J., Forbes, M. K., Fardouly, J., Magson, N. R., & Richardson, C. E.  
(2020). Adolescent development and risk for the onset of social-emotional disorders: A review and  
conceptual  
model.  
Behaviour  
Research  
and  
Therapy,  
123,  
103501.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103501  
24. Rogers, C. R. (2022). Silenced in the classroom: Cancel culture, student fear, and the erosion of critical  
thinking. Educational Review, 74(5), 689–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1868800  
25. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory  
perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,  
61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860  
26. Song, S., Martin, M. J., & Wang, Z. (2024). School belonging mediates the longitudinal effects of racial  
discrimination on academic and emotional well-being among Black and Latinx adolescents. Journal of  
Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedp.2024  
27. Steel, A., Karunaratne, N., Exintaris, B., James, S., Al-Juhaishi, A., Don, A., Dai, D. W., & Lim, A.  
(2024). The impact of resilience on academic performance with a focus on mature learners. BMC  
Medical Education, 24(1), 1105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06099-2  
Page 3149  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
28. Stevens, J. S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2021). Peer victimization and social stress in adolescence: Pathways to  
psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-  
clinpsy-081219-110018  
29. Štremfel, U., et al. (2024). Addressing the sense of school belonging among all students: A systematic  
literature review. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.  
30. Ungar, M. (2021). Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation across contexts. Oxford  
University Press.  
31. Wang, F., Smith, A., & Lopez, L. (2025). Fostering resilience among university students: The role of  
assessment and feedback. Springer.  
32. Warner, D. (2023). Student activism and the psychological toll of cancel culture: A survey of U.S.  
universities. Journal of College Student Development, 64(2), 131–148.  
33. WestEd. (2024). School climate essentials: A call to action. https://wested2024.s3.us-west-  
1.amazonaws.com  
34. Wong, B. (2022). Decolonising education: The role of cancel culture in shaping UK school debates.  
British  
Journal  
of  
Sociology  
of  
Education,  
43(2),  
167–183.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1972367  
35. Zembylas, M. (2024). Cancel culture through social media: Pedagogical implications for teachers and  
students. Journal of Educational and Social Change, 12(2), 145–162.  
Page 3150  
www.rsisinternational.org