The Right Way to Forgive a Partner Who's Been Bad | Psychology Today

The news in late February 2019 is strewn with stories of famous people misbehaving in a highly public, if not illegal, manner. Empire star Jussie Smollett is alleged to have faked being an assault victim, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is alleged to have solicited sex at a Florida massage parlor, and singer R. Kelly is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct with underage women. These are just three of the incidents taking over the headlines, but the list could go on and on. As you read these stories, you shake your head and wonder how those you once admired could have fallen so far.

Think, also, about the people in your own life who have strayed from the straight and narrow, if not gotten into downright trouble. Were you so dismayed by your partner that you couldn't shake off that bad feeling you have? Do you wonder why the person you trusted most in the world has committed an illegal act or made a series of phenomenally bad decisions? How could this have happened, and what should you do?

Returning to those famous cases of people whose behavior puzzles and disappoints you, it’s not possible to conduct a diagnosis of the individuals who suffer these downfalls without direct knowledge from a psychological assessment, and each case is undoubtedly different. You may ponder whether such individuals have more than a small dose of narcissism which creates its own illusion, to the protagonist, of being entitled to special treatment. Certainly, these individuals live in a world in which their every wish is catered to by the admirers and hangers-on who are with them 24-7. The so-called “narcissistic bubble” created by fame could therefore be a significant factor in leading people who were once humble and honest to become convinced of their own invulnerability. For others, the downfall may be related to a kind of imposter syndrome in which they don’t feel deserving of their positions of prominence, and so they begin a self-sabotaging fall to the bottom. Alternatively, they just might not care about the consequences of their behavior due to a strong streak of psychopathy.

Celebrities can be flawed, then, for a variety of reasons. The next question becomes how their fans manage the dismay they feel when those flaws are exposed. The endless discussions around water coolers and dinner tables everywhere, not to mention cable news, suggest that even the most cynical people share at least some sense of betrayal or having been duped.

There are practical ramifications when a celebrity’s image becomes heavily tarnished, if not destroyed, when such illegal or immoral behavior becomes exposed. The creative products of these individuals, the organizations they represent, or the companies for which they were spokespersons now can be painted with the same brush of disrepute. New research in the area of consumer psychology provides some insight into the impact on viewers when celebrity actors commit transgressions. University of Newcastle (Australia) marketing professor Amanda Kennedy and colleagues (2019) note that actors who fall from grace might somehow preserve their ability to be effective promoters in the eyes of the public if they maintain the personas of their characters in film or TV. As they point out, there are many cases in which actors appear as themselves to endorse a product or brand, such as Brad Pitt for Chanel or Matthew McConaughey for Lincoln. Alternatively, cases such as Will Ferrell portraying his popular Ron Burgundy character for Chrysler show that celebrities can also promote a product in the guise of their most popular film roles.

According to the Australian research team, consumers form a network of associations to actors, and another set of associations to the roles played by the actors. Focusing their study on the actor Orlando Bloom, the authors describe those associations to him as including the roles he has played in Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings, as well as his romantic partners, such as Katy Perry, and the words “successful,” “handsome,” “stylish,” and “nude.” To his character Legolas (from Lord of the Rings), people associate such terms as “young,” “handsome,” “brave,” “Hobbit,” “powerful,” “elf,” and “mythical/fantasy.” The authors propose that if a product is tied closely to the role and not the celebrity, transgressions made by the celebrity will not rub off onto the product. As strange as this might sound, then, if Will Ferrell happened to be one of those badly behaving celebrities (and there’s no evidence he is), the fact that “Ron Burgundy” was selling Chryslers should have no impact on the brand’s success. Behind this theory, too, is the idea that people have a smaller set of associations to a character than to the actor, which further enhances the positive value of the character’s product endorsement.

To test this hypothesis, Kennedy et al. conducted a series of studies in which they settled on Orlando Bloom as the appropriate celebrity to use for contrasting Legolas with Bloom himself as an endorser for a fictional brand of bottled water. In the “celebrity no transgression” condition, the researchers presented participants with the information about Bloom’s history, including the serious fall he survived when he was 21 years old. In the “celebrity transgression” condition, this information was added: “A little known fact about Orlando, because his agent has been able to prevent the media from reporting this news, is that he has a history of drug abuse and at times during his career has been a regular cocaine user. This has caused him considerable pain and anguish, but he mostly has been able to conceal the problem from close friends and family” (p. 112). The sample of 291 Australian adults completed the online measures that tested, after reading the transgression/no transgression information, their intention to purchase the product.

• The Importance of Forgiveness
• Take our Empathy Test
• Find a therapist near me

As they expected, the authors found that celebrity endorsements tied to a persona were more effective than those tied to the celebrity. Furthermore, information about Bloom’s transgressions in fact reduced the favorable reactions participants had to the product. Therefore, as the authors conclude, “advertisers should look to use film personas, as opposed to the celebrities themselves” when seeking product endorsements. Unfortunately, if the film persona is an evil one, this strategy could backfire (would you buy a deodorant endorsed by Darth Vader?). Furthermore, if the celebrity has shown to be an admirable citizen beyond reproach, who might even participate in charitable causes, those positive associations won’t rub off onto products for endorsement.

The Australian study shows, then, that people have an ability to compartmentalize the behavior of a celebrity behaving badly if that celebrity’s role is the one advertisers are trying to push. The idea of the semantic network might also explain the way that some fans are able to remain loyal to a celebrity who has gotten into serious trouble, as happened for die-hard Patriots fans in the wake of the Kraft scandal. If your semantic network focuses on that person’s positive attributes, such as talent, charity work, or business acumen, then the transgressions will seem less serious, and you might even defend the transgressor.

To sum up, the misbehaving celebrity’s behavior can tell you as much about yourself as about the celebrity in question. Furthermore, Kennedy et al.'s study shows that there can be a path to forgiveness of those who stray in your own life. To achieve fulfillment in the relationships you have with the actual people to whom you're close, some of that compartmentalization and focusing on the positive may prove to lead the way.