Sexual Assault Allegations Get Artists Canceled More Than Murder, Study Finds
Though they considered murder morally worse, survey participants deemed artists accused of sexual abuse more deserving of censure.
A recent psychological study on so-called "cancel culture" and artistic impact found that its respondents reacted more punitively toward an artist accused of sexual assault (SA) compared to an artist accused of murder.
The sentiment was consistent whether the artist was previously unknown or identified as a respondent's favorite, and the study revealed that political orientation was not a predictor across the responses.
While SA accusations incited the most calls for the censure and economic devaluation of an artist's work, the study found that the allegations didn't meaningfully reduce respondents' enjoyment of the artwork itself, reflecting inconsistencies between public and private behavior. Propelled by the wake of the #MeToo movement and increased dialogue about the motives behind cancel culture, the findings bring questions about moral posturing and personal feelings to the fore.
Titled “Canceling Creativity? Exploring Artist Censure As a Function of Crime Type,” the study led by Rebecka Hahnel-Peeters, an assistant professor of psychology at Indiana State University whose research specializes in sexual conflict and moral judgment, was published in the journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts this March. Hyperallergic spoke with fellow researchers Keelah Williams and Jaimie Krems, associate professors of psychology at Hamilton College and the University of California, Los Angeles, respectively, about the findings and the next steps.
