Introduction
This report is based on in-depth interviews with 4 respondents across different age groups (19-32) and geographic regions, including consumers from Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama, and Florida. Through systematic analysis of respondents' real experiences across social media statements, actual consumption behavior, and psychological reconciliation mechanisms, this study aims to reveal the contradictory psychology between consumers' "public attitudes" and "private behaviors", exploring Cancel Culture's real impact on actual purchase decisions.
Summary
There is a widespread gap between respondents' public statements and actual consumption behavior regarding controversial brands/celebrities on social media — most acknowledge that "speaking out online but purchasing as usual" is the norm, with only a few maintaining high consistency between words and actions.
Product substitutability is the primary factor influencing whether consumers sustain boycotts — when comparable alternatives exist, boycott decisions are easier to execute; when products are unique or meet rigid personal needs, value-based positions often yield to practical demands.
Different types of controversies hold clear severity hierarchies in consumers' minds — racism and political stances (e.g., supporting Israel) are viewed as "unforgivable" red lines, while marketing missteps and quality issues are more easily forgiven, provided the brand demonstrates sincere corrective action.
Social pressure operates differently online vs. offline: respondents generally stated that the public or private nature of purchase settings (online vs. in-store, alone vs. accompanied) does not change purchase decisions, but affects whether they publicly share or discuss the purchase, forming a "silent consumption" strategy.
Consumers' psychological reconciliation of their own "inconsistency" shows polarization: some rationalize contradictions through "individualist" narratives ("I'm paying for my own comfort, not to support the brand"), while others maintain cognitive consistency through strict behavioral discipline to avoid guilt.
Findings
Respondent Profiles: Social Media is Deeply Integrated into Daily Life, Content Consumption Shows Passive Browsing and Active Participation
Respondents demonstrated high social media dependency, with daily usage ranging from "every few hours" to "constantly online," concentrated on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. In content preferences, respondents' interests broadly cover entertainment gossip, fashion brands, and social issues, though engagement depth varies — from pure browsers to active opinion expressers. Regarding consumption decisions, respondents generally follow brand and product information, but the importance placed on endorsers varies by generation and individual.
Respondents' social media usage shows high-frequency, multi-platform characteristics — refreshing multiple times daily has become routine, with TikTok and Instagram as the most mainstream information channels for browsing entertainment, following fashion trends, and tracking social issues.
The boundary between passive browsing and active participation varies by individual — some respondents primarily "scroll and browse," occasionally liking or commenting, while others proactively post opinions, especially on topics involving value conflicts.
In consumption habits, brand awareness and product quality are core concerns, but sensitivity to endorsers or brand controversies varies significantly — some respondents proactively research brand values, while others focus more on product value-for-money and practicality.
Attitude Expression Toward Controversial Brands/Celebrities on Social Media: Primarily Browsing with Selective Voicing, Mixed Motivations of Values and Social Interaction
Respondents could readily recall multiple controversial brand or celebrity cases, including Kanye West's antisemitic comments, Balenciaga's ad controversy, Starbucks and Chick-fil-A's political stances, and R. Kelly and Diddy's sexual crime allegations. In terms of participation, most respondents adopted relatively moderate forms of expression — browsing, liking, or commenting — rather than aggressive public denouncement. Statement motivations showed diversified characteristics, encompassing genuine value expression, social network "side-taking" needs, and content saturation management (such as unfollowing to avoid negative information bombardment).
Memory of controversial brands/celebrities is highly correlated with controversy severity — cases involving racism and sexual crimes (e.g., Kanye West, R. Kelly, Diddy) leave the deepest impressions, while marketing missteps or political stance controversies (e.g., Balenciaga, Starbucks) are more easily downplayed or forgotten.
"I think that some of the heavier crimes, like, especially if there's, like, sex involved or, yeah, like, yeah, like, sex based crimes, those ones are kind of at the top of the line, the ones that, you know, you don't really want to be associated with. But, like, the Meg the Stallion and the Nicki Minaj issues, I think those ones are a lot lighter, and I don't really think that they are, you know, getting a lot of judgments and that my decision is based off of it as much. So, um, yeah, I'd say that the R. Kelly and Diddy things are more unforgivable, but I don't believe that anything should be all the way unforgivable because I do believe people are allowed to change and grow."
— Shaniece Robinson
"I think there's more room for forgiveness depending on the joke. Or insensitive or bad take. If it's a joke and the only really purpose was for it to be funny. And then the joke was not only not funny, but terrible. To a certain group of people. I think if a creator apologizes and takes firm actions to not only show that they don't support that kind of stuff, and b, that they're actively changing their worldview and how they think of things, then I think it's, uh, a lot more lenient for forgiveness."
— Joshua Gilmer
In specific participation behavior, most respondents adopt a "soft participation" strategy — browsing related discussions, occasionally liking boycott-supporting posts, but rarely initiating public denouncements or sharing boycott initiatives, only taking explicit stances when issues directly touch personal value red lines.
Statement frequency is closely tied to personal social media usage style — respondents skilled at expressing opinions voice themselves during each major controversy, while those preferring an "observer" role choose silence or private discussions with friends, avoiding social pressure from public controversy involvement.
"I don't think I talked too much online about it, but I did talk about it with people in my direct circle."
— Shaniece Robinson
A few respondents mentioned "content saturation management" as a coping strategy — when a controversy topic is overexposed on their timeline, they choose to unfollow related accounts rather than continue engaging, reflecting a proactive need to control mental health and information environment.
"I think that the factors that I'm thinking about are, um, one, things tend to saturate my timeline, and sometimes you have to consider whether or not I should even engage because now I'm going to see a lot of this type of content. So as of lately, I've been seeing, um, well, I was seeing a lot of Nicki Minaj content. That's why I just ultimately unfollowed her because I didn't I didn't want to be sucked into that world But, something is let me see."
— Shaniece Robinson
Actual Consumption of Controversial Brands/Celebrities: Behavioral Trajectories Range from Complete Cessation to "Silent Consumption"
A significant separation exists between respondents' actual consumption behavior and public attitudes. Some respondents immediately stopped purchasing after controversies broke and took concrete action (such as donating existing products), while more showed behavioral flexibility — adjusting purchase frequency based on product type, personal needs, and controversy severity, or shifting to more discreet consumption. Music consumption is especially unique: even when artists face serious controversies, respondents still find it difficult to completely stop listening to "good songs," reflecting entertainment products' special nature.
Complete purchase cessation is mainly concentrated in severe moral controversy cases — when celebrities or brands cross red lines of racism or sexual crimes, some respondents take immediate action, such as donating Kanye's Yeezy shoes or stopping Chick-fil-A purchases.
More commonly, a "flexible consumption" pattern emerges — respondents reduce purchase frequency or switch to alternatives after controversies, but don't completely cut ties with the brand, especially when products are unique or tied to long-term personal habits, where behavioral change is slower.
"Let's see. If it was the more expensive product and let's say let's say it was something that I can get somewhere else for half the price or double the price with the celebrity endorsement, If it was controversial and let's say I was trying to make the decision just to be a supportive consumer, which I'm not really it's not really often that I care to support a person like that So, um, I'd say that the quality and the price are something that matter. But I'm probably gonna go the cheaper one. If there was no controversy, let's say this there's a celebrity that is associated with cool and, like, higher trajectory. It's like, I feel like it's forward to be associated with them, then I might take the extra cost to, uh, buy their product."
— Shaniece Robinson
"It does change things because if I'm having financial hardships, and I would like to get a good product for a decent price, it might weigh on my mind if I really want this Starbucks drink. Can an alternative to something that is not controversial but might be way more steep in terms of price."
— Joshua Gilmer
Music consumption exhibits a unique "separation mechanism" — multiple respondents admitted that even when artists face serious controversies (e.g., Bruno Mars accused of supporting Israel), they continue listening because "a good song is a good song," psychologically rationalizing this by separating the product from the creator's moral character.
"Uh, I mean, maybe slightly. Like, I say that consuming music is probably a direct support of them. At the same time, if it's a good song, it's a good song. When it comes to things like liquor, um, and and clothing, these things were more so for personal, um, for my personal self. So, I I it wouldn't be that controversial to me. So uh, it it it does it does matter a bit, but at the end of the day, I'm gonna buy what I wanna buy."
— Shaniece Robinson
Some respondents adopt a "investigate then resume" strategy — pausing purchases upon first hearing of controversies, then after 1-2 weeks of independent investigation, resuming normal consumption if the controversy proves unfounded or exaggerated, with the CeraVe skincare case being a typical example.
"It's, CeraVe, the skincare brand. So I actually saw that it was making your skin worse, and that's why they wanted you to keep buying. I saw a lot of people making that assumption. So then I start looking into it. And when I saw that they were just trying to create something, then I start buying from it."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
"No. I would look in I would stop buying, look into it. And when I found, like, clear answers on what they did, I would start buying again."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
The public or private nature of purchase settings has limited impact on actual purchase decisions — respondents generally stated that neither private online ordering nor being seen in-store changes purchase willingness, because "the transaction itself is what matters," though it affects whether they publicly share the consumption behavior.
"I don't think it matters much. It's rare that I'm shopping in person. Just about all of my shopping is online. So if I was buying something in the store, um, it's probably quick, and I definitely wouldn't care who's around me."
— Shaniece Robinson
"I would say I wouldn't care buying in store or online."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
"It wouldn't feel different. Because in both scenarios, I am giving money in return for product. Online just is a less convenient way than in person."
— Joshua Gilmer
Psychological Reconciliation Between Public Attitude and Private Behavior: Resolving Cognitive Dissonance Through "Individualist" Narratives and Product-Creator Separation
When facing attitude-behavior inconsistency, respondents displayed two distinctly different psychological coping patterns. Some rationalize contradictions by constructing "individualist" narratives — emphasizing "I'm buying the product itself, not supporting brand values," or "my personal comfort takes priority over symbolic boycotts," thereby dissolving guilt. Others maintain cognitive consistency through strict behavioral discipline, avoiding self-accusation of "hypocrisy" or "double standards." Post-purchase emotional reactions range from "completely unfazed" to "slight discomfort," but the duration is generally short, indicating most consumers can quickly complete psychological reconciliation.
"Individualist" narrative is the most mainstream psychological reconciliation mechanism — respondents resolve contradictions by emphasizing "I'm paying for my own needs and comfort, not supporting the brand's controversial behavior," framing consumption as personal choice rather than moral endorsement.
"Yeah. Um, my position is that, you know, I understand where you're coming from. Um, I'm not sure how much my particular buying power is going to make a difference. So I would rather be comfortable than to try to make a difference by being uncomfortable."
— Shaniece Robinson
"Because I feel like if I tell people that I did that, then it would be supportive in a way. And the last thing I wanna be known when I do something like that is I wanna be supportive. I want to purchase it. I want to enjoy the product for what it is. Not the brand. And then I want to let go."
— Joshua Gilmer
Some respondents employ a "product-creator separation" strategy, particularly in cultural consumption like music — they separate a product's artistic value from the creator's moral character, believing "a good song is a good song," making continued consumption possible.
"Uh, I mean, maybe slightly. Like, I say that consuming music is probably a direct support of them. At the same time, if it's a good song, it's a good song. When it comes to things like liquor, um, and and clothing, these things were more so for personal, um, for my personal self. So, I I it wouldn't be that controversial to me. So uh, it it it does it does matter a bit, but at the end of the day, I'm gonna buy what I wanna buy."
— Shaniece Robinson
Social pressure's influence trends toward privatization — respondents generally stated that if they purchase cancelled products, they would use them discreetly or not proactively tell others, to avoid negative judgments from social networks, though this concern is insufficient to prevent the purchase itself.
"I keep it to myself."
— Joshua Gilmer
"That's honest. And if you did that—bought the cheaper controversial option—would you tell people about it, or would that be something you'd keep to yourself?"
— Joshua Gilmer
A few highly disciplined respondents refuse to accept attitude-behavior inconsistency, believing "words and actions must align" as a matter of personal integrity, thus strictly executing boycott decisions even when facing inconvenience or higher costs — this need for cognitive consistency drives genuine behavioral change.
"No."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
"No. I would say it it it definitely resembles my real life choices pretty really."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Guilt duration is generally short — even when slight discomfort arises after purchasing controversial products, this emotion fades within hours to days, indicating most consumers possess strong psychological resilience and rapid cognitive reconciliation ability.
"I think that the factors that I'm thinking about are, um, one, things tend to saturate my timeline, and sometimes you have to consider whether or not I should even engage because now I'm going to see a lot of this type of content. So as of lately, I've been seeing, um, well, I was seeing a lot of Nicki Minaj content. That's why I just ultimately unfollowed her because I didn't I didn't want to be sucked into that world But, something is let me see."
— Shaniece Robinson
Key Factors in Actual Purchase Decisions: Product Substitutability Dominates, Personal Needs Often Outweigh Values in Conflict
In actual purchase decisions, respondents weigh multiple factors, but product substitutability has repeatedly proven to be the most critical determinant — when comparable, reasonably priced alternatives exist, consumers execute boycott decisions more easily; conversely, when products are unique or meet rigid needs, value-based positions often yield to practical needs. Price's role varies by individual — some insist "price doesn't affect principles," while others acknowledge choosing controversial brands when significant price differences exist. Brand crisis response — whether they sincerely apologize, whether they take remedial action — also plays an important role in decisions.
Product substitutability is the overwhelmingly primary factor — respondents unanimously emphasized "if there's an alternative, I'll switch," with boycott execution difficulty significantly reduced when comparable non-controversial options exist in the market.
"Alternatives, one hundred percent."
— Joshua Gilmer
"Yes. Because there's always alternatives."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Personal rigid needs hold overwhelming advantage in value conflicts — when products involve health needs (like specialty dairy for food allergies) or long-term usage habits, respondents prioritize personal needs, with controversy severity becoming secondary.
"I have some food allergies. I needed something from a specific brand. That makes, like, lactose free milk. They have some controversy about how they get their milk but I still bought it because it was what I needed, and it was what was available."
— Rebecca Kaiser
"The need was strong enough, so it was pretty straightforward."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Price's role shows polarization: some respondents insist "price should not influence moral choices," choosing alternatives even when controversial products are cheaper; others acknowledge that facing significant price differences (like "half the price"), economic considerations override value positions.
"No."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
"It does change things because if I'm having financial hardships, and I would like to get a good product for a decent price, it might weigh on my mind if I really want this Starbucks drink. Can an alternative to something that is not controversial but might be way more steep in terms of price."
— Joshua Gilmer
Brand crisis response significantly influences consumer decisions — respondents evaluate whether brands sincerely apologize, take remedial measures, and demonstrate genuine intent to change. If the brand responds appropriately, consumers are more willing to give "a second chance."
"Then how they address it? Their response. Do they address the situation? Do they do something to try and make it right, or do they just ignore it? Do they make it worse?"
— Rebecca Kaiser
"I think there's more room for forgiveness depending on the joke. Or insensitive or bad take. If it's a joke and the only really purpose was for it to be funny. And then the joke was not only not funny, but terrible. To a certain group of people. I think if a creator apologizes and takes firm actions to not only show that they don't support that kind of stuff, and b, that they're actively changing their worldview and how they think of things, then I think it's, uh, a lot more lenient for forgiveness."
— Joshua Gilmer
Public opinion serves a "validation" rather than determinative role — respondents reference mainstream opinions to confirm whether their own judgments are reasonable, but final decisions are still based on weighing personal values against practical needs, not blindly following the crowd.
"I would probably say just general public opinion."
— Rebecca Kaiser
"Typically, if all of the public is in agreement, you know, how the brand handled it, what they could have done better or why it's offensive. Oftentimes, I'll agree. I try not to get too lost in it. Like, I won't just go with the flow. If I think that, like, you know, there might be something wrong here, But usually, especially, like, overwhelmingly in the same direction is correct."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Behavioral Patterns Across Contexts: Clear Severity Hierarchy of Controversies, Limited Product Category Influence, Social Context Changes Sharing Not Purchasing
Respondents displayed clear behavioral pattern differences across contexts. On the controversy type dimension, racism, antisemitic speech, and political stances (like supporting Israel) are universally viewed as "unforgivable" red lines, while marketing missteps and quality issues are more easily forgiven. Product category influence is relatively limited — whether fashion, music, or daily goods, respondents tend to apply the same moral standards, though music consumption does feature a unique "separation mechanism." The public or private nature of purchase settings doesn't change purchase decisions themselves, but affects whether consumers publicly share the behavior, forming "silent consumption."
Controversy types have a clear severity hierarchy — respondents unanimously consider racism, antisemitic speech, and sexual crimes as "absolute red lines" triggering immediate and thorough boycotts; political stances (like corporate support for Israel) follow closely, also viewed as serious issues.
"I think that some of the heavier crimes, like, especially if there's, like, sex involved or, yeah, like, yeah, like, sex based crimes, those ones are kind of at the top of the line, the ones that, you know, you don't really want to be associated with. But, like, the Meg the Stallion and the Nicki Minaj issues, I think those ones are a lot lighter, and I don't really think that they are, you know, getting a lot of judgments and that my decision is based off of it as much. So, um, yeah, I'd say that the R. Kelly and Diddy things are more unforgivable, but I don't believe that anything should be all the way unforgivable because I do believe people are allowed to change and grow."
— Shaniece Robinson
"I think racism does hit a bit different because that shows so much about a person that, you know, one might not want to know. Being racist might show that you are in support of the brutality of people of color It might show that you are in support of your individual race being superior that people are lower, so they should resort to lower class jobs, lower pay. Racism is an issue that is outdated, overdone, and in in the grand scheme of things, needs to be extinct. Racism needs to go away because being a racist is just not cool. It's corny to say that, but it's it's it really is just the truth of the matter."
— Joshua Gilmer
"I would say anything that's more aligned politically or, like, dealing with, like, racism versus something like that."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Operational controversies are more easily forgiven — when controversies involve marketing missteps, quality issues, or can be attributed to "honest mistakes," respondents show higher tolerance, provided the brand demonstrates sincere corrective attitude and transparent communication.
"Um, I would say bad behaviors just because I feel like sometimes it's hard to manage a business. So if it's not a hundred percent perfect, then it's okay."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
"I would say, like, marketing things, like interpretations of how they marketed something. Or just maybe if they made a mistake that wasn't anything related to a social justice issue, and then they apologized. And you know, did right by their consumers."
— Rebecca Kaiser
Product category's influence on decisions is relatively limited — respondents generally stated they apply the same moral standards whether for fashion, music, food, or daily goods, "because there are always alternatives," though music and entertainment products do feature a unique separation mechanism.
"Yes. Because there's always alternatives."
— Rebecca Kaiser
"I would say they're both the same."
— Gabrielle Fuzeaux
Purchase setting publicity affects sharing willingness rather than purchase decisions — respondents generally don't care whether buying privately online or being seen in-store, but selectively publicize or hide consumption behavior, maintaining silence on social media or using products discreetly.
"I don't think it matters much. It's rare that I'm shopping in person. Just about all of my shopping is online. So if I was buying something in the store, um, it's probably quick, and I definitely wouldn't care who's around me."
— Shaniece Robinson
"It wouldn't feel different. Because in both scenarios, I am giving money in return for product. Online just is a less convenient way than in person."
— Joshua Gilmer
Self-positioning within group behavioral patterns shows divergence — some respondents believe they are "more consistent than average," while more acknowledge belonging to the mainstream group of "speaking out online but purchasing as usual," also observing that friends around them exhibit obvious attitude-behavior gaps.
"Yeah. Actually, that I am someone who speaks up sometimes online, but buys what I want. Again, I think I have a fair perspective. Um, you know, I may choose to unfollow and things like that if, you know, I see something. But a lot of times, the reasons why I unfollow is not the mainstream reason. I might see something, you know, in in the, what's it called? When I'm in the rabbit hole, which which make make me, uh, unfollow someone. But, ultimately, I'm gonna I'm gonna buy what I want."
— Shaniece Robinson
"That's a good question. Um, I think a lot of people probably are like me, but it just depends on how much influence you have around. And how much you participate in groupthink. And I think that I don't love to participate in groupthink. In fact, I love to provide my own perspective to kinda penetrate that groupthink. But you might have a group of people who all are, we, you know, we're boycotting is what we do. And because they feel the alignment, you know, let's say for even, like, a Target. We don't shop at Target where I'm like, I get the position, but I need to go to the store, I'm gonna go to the store. So, yeah, I think that there are people that are like me, but I think that most people participate in groupthink."
— Shaniece Robinson
"They mostly talk about it online."
— Rebecca Kaiser
