Who Gets Canceled for Sexual Assault?: The Roles of Likeability and Tactic on Perceived Perpetrator Accountability

Abstract

The #MeToo movement and social media have increased public awareness of sexual violence, particularly when committed by high-profile celebrities. Presently, we are within a unique sociocultural space, often referred to as “cancel culture,” in which perpetrators of sexual violence may face increased accountability. However, “cancelation” is not equally applied to all perpetrators. The purpose of this study was to explore the roles of perpetrator likeability and tactic (i.e., force and coercion) on the degree to which perpetrators are “canceled” (i.e., held accountable through personal, professional, and legal repercussions) for sexual assault. Among a sample of 238 participants, results of this experimental vignette study revealed that perpetrators viewed as unlikeable received more blame than those who were likeable or described in a neutral manner, with the survivors in the likeable perpetrator and neutral scenarios receiving greater blame. Moreover, perpetrators who used coercion were less likely to be blamed and be held accountable than those who used force, with the survivors in the coercive scenarios receiving greater blame. No interaction effects emerged between likeability and tactic, suggesting that the main effects operate independently of one another. Though the #MeToo movement and cancel culture have created cultural change in the United States, the findings from this study suggest that perpetrators continue to be held less accountable, so long as they are not unlikeable and do not use force.