Did online satire aimed at Taylor Swift “open the gates” to her being booed at the ?
It’s a possibility, according to researchers behind a new study investigating the role satire might play in shaping negative public opinions.
Just a few months before the Super Bowl incident, fans were willing to spend hundreds of dollars to see Swift perform on her record-breaking Eras Tour. But when she appeared on screen at the Super Bowl, she was met with boos.
There are several potential explanations for this, with the most obvious being that Swift’s boyfriend, Travis Kelce, was playing in the game for the Kansas City Chiefs, making her an easy target for the ire of rival fans.
The game was in Louisiana, a Republican state, where her could have fueled negative reactions.
And, of course, celebrities are often the subject of “tall poppy syndrome”.
But another, less well-understood phenomenon could be at play.
Since declaring her support for in 2020 and , Swift has been a target of right-wing satire and conspiracy theories — from memes to late-night show jokes, right-wing influencers have painted her as everything from a political puppet to a secret operative for the Biden administration.
While those reasons likely explain the public jeering of Swift, the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, suggests the impact of satire could be surprisingly damaging to someone’s reputation, and more so than straightforward criticism.
Satire makes fun of people, but can it go too far?
The study’s co-author Hooria Jazaieri from Santa Clara University, US, told DW that unlike critiques of someone’s specific actions or statements, satire distorts its target, dehumanizing them into a caricature.
“Most people think satire is just humorous and playful, but dehumanization exists on a spectrum and can include things like forgetting that others have complex emotions and feelings,” Jazaieri said.
To understand whether satire could cause more reputational damage than direct criticism despite its humorous nature, Jazaieri and her collaborator Derek Rucker from Northwestern University, US, conducted six experiments with more than 4,000 participants viewing videos and memes that were either satirical or critical.
These targeted famous figures like Tom Brady, Mark Zuckerberg, and Gwyneth Paltrow, as well as a fictitious person. Participants were then asked to rank their perception of the people they just saw.
Their hypothesis that satire, by reducing targets to caricatures, could harm reputations more significantly than straightforward criticism was supported by the results.
“Satire sharpened, rather than dulled, the blade of criticism,” they found, “Moreover, as an explanation for this effect, when compared to direct criticism, satire led to greater dehumanization, which led people to evaluate the target’s reputation more negatively.”
Satire can be useful, but when does it stop being funny?
While satire can sometimes cross into harmful territory, it can also be a powerful tool for political criticism, exposing corruption and societal injustices.
For instance, Thomas Nast’s cartoons played a key role in taking down corrupt New York Mayor Boss Tweed in the 1870s, rallying public support for reform, said Paul Lewis, a specialist in American culture and history at Boston College, US, and author of Cracking Up: American Humor in a Time of Conflict.
Similarly, shows like The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight use humor to highlight government wrongdoing, prompting reflection and encouraging public discourse.
If the crowd reaction in Swift’s case was fueled by satire, it may highlight how satire can stray from these benefits and become a form of bullying.
“Humor in bullying can lower the resistance of onlookers who might otherwise object to cruelty,” Lewis said.
Satire can cross the line into becoming a form of bullying when humorous critique becomes a demeaning attack.
This shift occurs when humor focuses on mocking or ridiculing individuals without offering meaningful insight, instead aiming to diminish their dignity. Some studies show bullying humor can have lasting effects on mental health, especially when it’s normalized by influential figures or audiences. Prolonged exposure to such ridicule can harm the target, leading to .
Empathy can be an antidote to satire.
Online satire aimed at Swift probably “opened the gates” to her being booed at the Super Bowl, said Rucker.
He and Jazaieri’s research suggests Swift could be the focus of future studies, given the stark divide between avid “Swifties” and online detractors.
The same public that booed her could just as easily be reminded why they admired her in the first place.
Rucker and Jazaieri found a potential antidote to satire’s dehumanizing effects in one of their experiments: imagining a positive interaction with the target of satire can soften negative perceptions by restoring their humanity.
In other words, a moment of empathy—however small—can help counteract the dehumanization that satire often fuels.
However, it’s also possible that Swift being booed at the Super Bowl may become fodder for further satire, creating an amplification loop. The study didn’t specifically explore this possibility, but Rucker acknowledged it as a plausible outcome. “People should think more critically about how their actions affect others,” he said.
Edited by: Matthew Ward Agius
Sources:
“Softening the Blow or Sharpening the Blade: Examining the Reputational Effects of Satire,” Hooria Jazaieri, PhD, Santa Clara University, and Derek D. Rucker, PhD, Northwestern University, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published online Feb. 10, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001729
“The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health.” Arseneault L. World Psychiatry. Feb;16(1):27-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399.
The post Could satire lead to Swift reputational damage? appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
