How do public insults reshape collective behavior and mental health?

The phrase "sticks and stones" has long been dismissed as a falsehood by researchers. Evidence indicates that verbal aggression produces measurable neurological changes and significant mental health impacts. This reality extends beyond private interactions into the public sphere, where high-profile insults reshape collective behavior.

Recent Public Incidents Highlight Harm

Comedian Shane Gillis sparked immediate backlash during his October 10 hosting gig on Saturday Night Live. In his monologue, he asserted that women at gyms now dress like "whores." Actor Dan Levy responded on Instagram, arguing that such attire does not make women whores but rather identifies the men making those claims as misogynists.

This commentary emerged amid intense debate over the Cornell case. A former student, identified as Jane Doe, alleges in a civil lawsuit that seven men drugged and raped her at a fraternity party. The underlying controversy questions whether a woman’s appearance or choices assign responsibility for sexual violence. Gillis’ remarks intersected directly with this societal tension.

Political figures have also engaged in similar rhetoric. Last November aboard Air Force One, President Trump told Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey to be "Quiet, piggy" when she asked about an Epstein email. The White House did not apologize; instead, it accused Lucey of unprofessionalism. Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado previously stated Trump used the same term, calling her "Miss Piggy."

Media personalities participate in this dynamic as well. Podcaster Megyn Kelly described the accuser in the Cornell case as "not the most attractive gal." When singer Olivia Rodrigo supported Jane Doe, Kelly labeled her a "know-nothing moron" and instructed her to stick to singing.

Psychological Mechanisms of Verbal Abuse

Insults targeting identity correlate strongly with shame. Objectification theory suggests that repeated reduction of women to their physical appearance encourages self-objectification. This habit links to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and shame (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

A 2006 study led by psychiatrist Martin Teicher at Harvard’s McLean Hospital examined 554 young adults. It found that childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression had moderate to large effects on dissociation, anxiety, and depression (Teicher et al., 2006). Subsequent research revealed that peer verbal abuse tied to higher psychiatric symptoms and observable differences in brain white matter (Teicher et al., 2010).

Psychologists distinguish between criticizing actions and judging character. Feeling bad about a specific behavior often motivates repair. Conversely, feeling bad about one’s core self correlates with defensive anger, anxiety, and depression (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). For example, stating "What you did was selfish" critiques behavior, while saying "You’re selfish" issues a verdict on identity.

Context and Identity Targeting

The impact of a name depends on its target and context. Teasing can be affectionate or cruel based on relationship dynamics and intent (Keltner et al., 2001). Maximum damage occurs when unwanted names attack central aspects of identity.

Author Frank Spinelli M.D. illustrates this through personal experience. In sixth grade, a classmate called him "Smelly Spinelli," which eventually shortened to "Smelly." The nickname caused little harm because it described a trait he did not believe he possessed. However, being called "queer" cut deeply. That label named an aspect of his identity and turned it into an indictment. He felt himself becoming smaller each time, believing that shrinking would prevent the word from hurting him.

Social Permission Through Humor

Social psychologist Thomas Ford describes "prejudiced norm theory." Individuals with prejudiced views often remain silent due to fear of social disapproval. Disparaging humor lowers this barrier. The joke frame signals to listeners that such views are acceptable.

Ford’s work implies comedians warrant scrutiny because the joke format is uniquely disarming. However, status grants permission too. Following the 2016 election, Americans judged expressing prejudice against groups targeted by Trump more acceptable (Crandall et al., 2018). When presidents or podcasters use slurs, they convey that people of their standing say such things without consequence.

Gillis should face accountability for his comments, as should the producers who aired them. Yet focusing solely on comedians ignores the broader culture. Name-calling has become the adult equivalent of playground taunts, flowing from podiums, podcasts, and press gaggles. Each insult facilitates the next. Words cause real harm to targets and quietly alter what society accepts. Criticism of comedians must extend upward to those whose words carry greater weight.