International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 13, Issue 8 (August 2026), Pages: 11-19

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Consumers’ justice perceptions and attitudes toward cancel culture: Evidence from Millennials and Generation Z

 Author(s): 

Urandelger Gantulga, Munkhbayasgalan Ganbold *, Otgonsaikhan Nyamdaa

 Affiliation(s):

Business School, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2424-2576

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.08.002

 Abstract

This study examines how justice perceptions influence consumers’ support for cancel culture decisions, particularly whether they choose to cancel or continue supporting an influencer and the related brand. Based on justice theory, the study distinguishes between distributive and procedural justice applied to others and to oneself. Subjective norms are introduced as a mediating factor to explain how these justice perceptions translate into support for cancel culture. In addition, the study examines generational differences between Millennials and Generation Z, two cohorts that are highly engaged with social media but may differ in their ethical expectations and sanctioning behaviors. Survey data were collected from 200 Millennials and 200 Generation Z consumers and analyzed using SmartPLS 4. The findings reveal a notable self–other asymmetry in justice evaluation: consumers tend to judge the actions of others more strictly than their own, indicating that perceptions of injustice directed at public figures are more likely to trigger support for cancel culture than personal justice considerations. Furthermore, the positive moderating coefficient suggests a possible tendency for Generation Z to be more influenced by social pressure and collective opinions when forming attitudes toward cancel culture.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Justice perceptions, Cancel culture, Influencer marketing, Subjective norms, Generational differences

 Article history

Received 16 March 2026, Received in revised form 25 June 2026, Accepted 6 August 2026

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

The authors confirm that participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and all participants provided informed consent. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of social science research. 

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

Gantulga U, Ganbold M, and Nyamdaa O (2026). Consumers’ justice perceptions and attitudes toward cancel culture: Evidence from Millennials and Generation Z. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(8): 11-19

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (29)

  1. Aguiar TR, Lopes D, and Brooks TR (2025). Qualitative insights into cancel culture prevention, its potential individual impacts, and how to explore them. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025: 8479135. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/8479135   [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T   [Google Scholar]
  3. Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, Tucker JA, and Van Bavel JJ (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28): 7313-7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114   [Google Scholar] PMid:28652356 PMCid:PMC5514704
  4. Clark MD (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   [Google Scholar]
  5. Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Zapata CP, and Rich BL (2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208   [Google Scholar] PMid:21910516
  6. Effron DA and Miller DT (2015). Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131: 16-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.004   [Google Scholar]
  7. Epley N and Caruso EM (2004). Egocentric ethics. Social Justice Research, 17: 171-187. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027408.72713.45   [Google Scholar]
  8. Gantulga U, Sample B, and Tugsbat A (2022). Predicting RFID adoption towards urban smart mobility in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Asia Marketing Journal, 24(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.53728/2765-6500.1584   [Google Scholar]
  9. Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2): 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, and Ringle CM (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1): 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203   [Google Scholar]
  11. Hegner SM, Fetscherin M, and Van Delzen M (2017). Determinants and outcomes of brand hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1): 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070   [Google Scholar]
  12. Janoff-Bulman R and Carnes NC (2014). Motivation and morality: Insights into political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3): 316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002604   [Google Scholar] PMid:24970438
  13. Kim Y and Sundar SS (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1): 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006   [Google Scholar]
  14. Lou C and Yuan S (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1): 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501   [Google Scholar]
  15. Lucas T, Alexander S, Firestone I, and LeBreton JM (2007). Development and initial validation of a procedural and distributive just world measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1): 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.008   [Google Scholar]
  16. Lucas T, Aspiras O, and Lipkus I (2026). Believing in justice for self and others: Independent and interactive effects on perceived healthcare discrimination among African Americans. Social Justice Research, 39: 42-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-025-00468-y   [Google Scholar]
  17. Muhamad N, Khamarudin M, and Fauzi WIM (2019). The role of religious motivation in an international consumer boycott. British Food Journal, 121(1): 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2018-0118   [Google Scholar]
  18. 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   [Google Scholar]
  19. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, and Podsakoff NP (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879   [Google Scholar] PMid:14516251
  20. Reinartz W, Haenlein M, and Henseler J (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4): 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001   [Google Scholar]
  21. Roldan CJL, Ong AKS, and Tomas DQ (2024). Cancel culture in a developing country: A belief in a just world behavioral analysis among Generation Z. Acta Psychologica, 248: 104378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104378   [Google Scholar] PMid:38941914
  22. Rupp DE, Shao R, Jones KS, and Liao H (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2): 159-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.011   [Google Scholar]
  23. Shao Z and Ho JSY (2025). Revealing the resistance of virtual streamers: Intrusiveness, privacy disclosure and perceived justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 37(12): 3758-3781. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-12-2024-1895   [Google Scholar]
  24. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, and Sargis EG (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6): 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895   [Google Scholar] PMid:15982112
  25. Tandoc EC, Tan Hui Ru B, Lee Huei G, Min Qi Charlyn N, Chua RA, and Goh ZH (2024). #CancelCulture: Examining definitions and motivations. New Media & Society, 26(4): 1944-1962. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221077977   [Google Scholar]
  26. Tsog J and Gantulga U (2026). The effect of consumers’ justice beliefs on boycotting social media influencers. Journal of Business and Innovation (Бизнес & Инноваци), 12(1): 117–140. https://doi.org/10.22353/jbai.2026120107   [Google Scholar]
  27. Twenge JM (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood—and what that means for the rest of us. Atria Books, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Tyler TR and Blader SL (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4): 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07   [Google Scholar] PMid:14633471 PMCid:PMC8864515
  29. Yoruk I, Hsu JH, and Lee ZW (2025). Consumer forgiveness: A literature review and research agenda. Psychology & Marketing, 42(2): 554-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22138   [Google Scholar]