Why Shaming Doesn't Work: Identity and the Backfire Effect

I have noticed a pattern in recent conversations with clients. More than a few have come to me, frustrated and exhausted, by a loved one or co-worker who continues to believe things that are demonstrably untrue. They gather research. They send links. They walk carefully through timelines and evidence. Still, nothing shifts. The stress lingers in the body. Trust begins to erode. Conversations grow tense and brittle. They ask me why clear information seems to deepen the divide rather than close it.

Psychology offers insight into what is happening beneath the surface. Leon Festinger’s foundational research on cognitive dissonance demonstrated that when people encounter information that conflicts with deeply held beliefs, they experience internal psychological discomfort. In their classic experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith found that individuals often resolve that discomfort by adjusting their attitudes in ways that preserve internal coherence. Over decades, this theory has helped explain why belief revision is rarely a simple matter of presenting better data. When a belief is tied to identity, belonging, or moral meaning, contradictory evidence can intensify commitment rather than weaken it.

Shame accelerates this process. Research by June Tangney and Ronda Dearing on shame and guilt shows that shame is associated with defensiveness, anger, and a tendency to externalize blame.

When people feel shamed, their attention turns toward protecting the self. The nervous system shifts into a guarded posture. In that state, curiosity narrows and listening diminishes. Conversations that begin with the intention of correcting misinformation can easily become experiences of humiliation or social rejection. Once that happens, the primary task for the person on the receiving end becomes psychological survival.

This dynamic surfaced in Trevor Noah’s recent episode of What Now? titled “Are You In a Cult?” in conversation with Dr. Steven Hassan. Hassan, a mental health professional and former cult member, explained that confronting individuals in high-control environments with facts, ridicule, or moral condemnation frequently entrenches them further. Drawing from his clinical work and from research summarized in The Cult of Trump, he described how identity, community ties, and information control create systems in which outside correction is interpreted as a threat. Attempts to dismantle belief through forceful argument often strengthen the internal bonds of the group.

Hassan advocates for a different approach grounded in empathy and strategic curiosity. Instead of attacking conclusions, he encourages engaging the person behind the belief. Asking how they came to trust certain sources. Exploring what fears or hopes are attached to the narrative. Reconnecting with shared values. This is not passive acceptance of falsehood. It is an acknowledgment that belief systems are sustained by emotional and relational forces as much as by information.

Empathy plays a measurable role in opening space for change. C. Daniel Batson’s extensive research on empathic concern demonstrates that when individuals experience genuine empathy, they become more willing to consider perspectives beyond their own and show greater prosocial responsiveness. Empathy lowers perceived threat and increases relational safety. In practical terms, this creates the psychological conditions under which someone can reflect rather than defend.

For leaders, parents, and colleagues, this matters deeply. In families and workplaces, shaming responses may offer a brief sense of moral clarity, yet they often leave personal relationships strained and workplace cultures polarized. The research on cognitive dissonance suggests that identity-level beliefs resist direct assault. The research on shame shows that humiliation triggers self-protection. Dr. Hassan’s clinical observations reinforce that confrontational tactics frequently solidify the very dynamics they aim to disrupt.

In my own work with conscious leadership, I have come to see that transformation rarely begins with exposure. It begins with safety. When people feel respected, even in disagreement, their nervous systems settle. When they sense curiosity instead of contempt, they are more likely to examine inconsistencies on their own. Change that emerges from within is more durable than change coerced from without.

Escorting someone toward empathy requires patience and emotional discipline. It requires listening for the human need beneath the position. It calls leaders to regulate their own frustration so that conversations do not become battlegrounds. The evidence is clear that shame constricts while empathy expands. If our aim is sustainable change rather than momentary victory, empathy is not the soft alternative. It is a strategy grounded in how human beings actually process belief, identity, and belonging.

If you or your organization is navigating conversations that feel tense, divisive, or stuck, visit Ok...On Second Thought Coaching at www.onsecondthoughtstudio.com to explore research-informed communication strategies designed to build trust, reduce defensiveness, and move dialogue forward.

Resources

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Hassan, S. (2019). The cult of Trump: A leading cult expert explains how the president uses mind control. Free Press.

Noah, T. (Host). (2024). Are you in a cult? [Audio podcast episode]. In What Now? with Trevor Noah. Spotify.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.