What incentives drive partisan amplification of humiliating rumors about public figures, and which actors most commonly profit from such narratives?
Executive summary
Partisan amplification of humiliating rumors is fueled by a mix of social, political, technological, and financial incentives: people gain reputation and group status by sharing salacious content, partisan organizations and media outlets mobilize outrage to win attention and loyalty, and platforms and attention‑economy actors monetize virality [1] [2] 2024-election-narrative/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3]. Empirical work shows that these motives persist even when accuracy is rewarded, and that unfamiliar, ideologically convenient claims often stick because people form sincere beliefs aligned with their politics rather than merely feigning them [4] [5].
1. Social and reputational payoffs: why humiliation spreads like wildfire
Individuals share humiliating rumors because doing so delivers social rewards: praise from like‑minded followers, signals of partisan loyalty, and increased status within an in‑group, and experiments show the presence of a sympathetic audience materially increases sharing of congruent headlines whether true or false [1] [2]. Psychological and network scholarship traces viral rumor circulation to these reputation and social‑bonding incentives—Kapferer’s theory and contemporary studies both point to the reputational benefits of passing dramatic claims along [6].
2. Political utility: humiliation as a weapon of partisan warfare
Political actors and partisan media have explicit incentives to amplify demeaning narratives because negative personalization of opponents mobilizes base voters, hardens partisan identity, and shapes campaign narratives during moments of electoral uncertainty—conditions that allow rumors to gain traction when audiences are primed for a particular outcome [7] [8]. Scholars who analyze election cycles document how disinformation was deliberately used to define narratives in 2024, and note that individuals and organizations can profit politically and financially by keeping a rancorous story alive [3].
3. Platform dynamics and asymmetric amplification
Algorithmic recommendation systems and network structures tilt virality toward emotionally charged content; audits and studies find that algorithmic feeds and partisan follow networks can increase exposure to low‑quality or uncorroborated rumors, and that right‑leaning accounts in several analyses saw a disproportionate increase in rumor content on algorithmic feeds [9]. Additionally, partisan network segregation and echo chambers create feedback loops where polarized users amplify misinformation more readily, and empirical work documents asymmetries in exposure—conservatives in multiple studies were likelier to see and share misinformation [10].
4. Financial incentives and the commercialization of scandal
Many actors profit directly from circulating humiliating rumors: websites, newsletters, and digital platforms monetize clicks, subscriptions, advertising, and merchandise tied to viral narratives, and analyses of the 2024 cycle explicitly identify monetary gain as a strong motive for spreading blatant lies [3]. Tabloid and gossip industries have long converted private scandal into revenue, a dynamic that modern instant distribution and micro‑paywall models only magnify [11] [12].
5. Professional actors: who engineers and benefits from smear campaigns
Beyond organic sharers, organized actors—partisan media outlets, political operatives, PR firms, influencers, and coordinated “all‑stars” on social networks—actively seed and amplify humiliating claims; investigative and case studies of celebrity and political smear campaigns identify crisis PR firms and coordinated rumor mills as central components in orchestrated reputation attacks [13] [3]. Mainstream and niche outlets can both profit: mainstream partisan outlets win audiences by framing opponents negatively while fringe sites harvest attention from sensational claims [7] [3].
6. Limits of correction and alternative explanations
Intervention research shows that accuracy incentives can reduce partisan misreporting in some contexts, suggesting insincere signaling plays a role, but when claims are unfamiliar people form sincere, ideologically aligned beliefs and incentives often fail to correct them—experiments find sizable partisan differences remain even with monetary accuracy incentives [5] [4]. Other research stresses structural causes—segregated networks and platform curation—rather than purely bad faith, so responsibility for amplification is dispersed across human motives and technological design [10] [9].
7. Bottom line: diffuse gains, concentrated harms
The incentives that drive partisan amplification of humiliating rumors are distributed—social esteem, political advantage, algorithmic engagement, and direct monetization all push the same content into circulation—while the harms concentrate on targeted individuals and public trust; the actors who most consistently profit include partisan media and pundits, digital platforms and ad/ subscription ecosystems, influencers and opportunistic websites, and organized political/PR operators who weaponize rumor for advantage [1] [3] [13]. Existing studies warn that any effective response must address social motives, platform incentives, and the political contexts that make rumors sticky [2] [8].