The Megan Markle Effect refers to the phenomenon where an individual, despite their fame and public presence, struggles to gain positive public perception or long-lasting support. Despite her royal status, philanthropy, and significant media coverage, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, has faced substantial backlash and criticism, particularly from the media and public opinion. This paradox of public visibility and negative perception offers an intriguing psychological case study. To understand why this happens, we can turn to Attribution Theory and Self-Determination Theory (SDT).
1. Attribution Theory and the Megan Markle Effect
Attribution Theory, developed by Heider (1958) and expanded by Fritz Heider and Bernard Weiner (1985), focuses on how individuals interpret and assign causes to their own behavior and the behavior of others. It explains that we constantly assess others’ actions, deciding whether they are the result of internal (personality, character) or external(environmental factors) causes.
In Meghan Markle’s case, many people attribute her actions and decisions to internal factors—her personal character traits—rather than considering the external pressures or circumstances she faces. For example, when Meghan and her husband Prince Harry stepped back from royal duties, the public often saw it as an act of selfishness or entitlement, despite their claims of mental health struggles and desire for privacy. This reflects a fundamental attribution error, where observers attribute the behavior of others to their internal characteristics rather than situational factors. This bias can cause a person to be disliked for decisions that are more complex than they appear on the surface.
Peer-reviewed studies have shown that people tend to assign negative motives to others when they don’t conform to societal expectations. For example, Lammers et al. (2011) found that people who deviate from social norms—especially in high-profile cases—are often labeled as entitled, narcissistic, or insincere, even if their motives are rooted in more nuanced personal or external struggles.
In the case of Meghan Markle, her departure from royal life and subsequent statements were often framed as a rejection of societal expectations, leading the public to attribute her behavior to a lack of internal control or selflessness. This could result in a perception of dislike or disconnection among some individuals, as they perceive her to be rejecting the norms that have traditionally been associated with the British royal family.
2. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Megan Markle Effect
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Deci and Ryan (1985), focuses on the intrinsic motivation and psychological needs of individuals, particularly the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. SDT suggests that when people feel they have the autonomy to make decisions and control their own lives, they experience greater well-being and motivation. Conversely, if they are pressured into decisions or feel disconnected from others, it can lead to negative psychological outcomes.
Meghan Markle’s decision to step down from royal duties was often perceived by the public as an assertion of autonomy—she and Harry expressed a desire to live more independently and prioritize their mental health. However, from a public perspective, this assertion of autonomy conflicted with the expectations placed on them as royals, where duty and conformity to tradition were paramount. SDT posits that when people are unable to satisfy their need for relatedness (in Meghan’s case, to the royal family and British public), they may feel alienated or misunderstood.
Additionally, Meghan Markle’s autonomy in seeking mental health support and speaking publicly about it was another source of backlash. Public opinion often reacts poorly when people in the public eye discuss topics such as mental healthor personal boundaries, especially when it involves rejecting societal or institutional norms. This can lead to an internal conflict for observers, who may perceive her as selfish or ungrateful for not conforming to royal expectations.
Peer-reviewed studies on SDT suggest that when people are forced into roles or behavior that go against their intrinsic motivations, they experience discomfort or alienation. Chirkov et al. (2003) demonstrated that when individuals feel a lack of autonomy or control in their actions, they are less likely to be accepted or liked by others. In the case of Meghan Markle, her assertion of autonomy and decision to break away from the royal family may have caused the public to view her actions as an “anti-social” rebellion, causing the backlash she has experienced.
Conclusion: Understanding the Megan Markle Effect Through Psychological Theories
The Megan Markle Effect highlights the complexities of public perception and how psychological theories like Attribution Theory and Self-Determination Theory can help us understand why some people, despite their success, face widespread criticism and disliking. Meghan’s decisions were driven by internal and external factors that many failed to recognize due to attribution biases, and her desire for autonomy and personal well-being, while understandable from an SDT perspective, clashed with public expectations.
By understanding how attribution errors and autonomy conflicts influence the way we perceive others, we can gain deeper insights into the dynamics of public opinion and the psychological factors that shape our interactions. In Meghan Markle’s case, embracing these psychological frameworks provides a clearer understanding of why some people might feel disconnected from her, and how we can approach others with more empathy and understanding, avoiding the biases that lead to unfair judgments.
References:
- Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley.
- Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Power Increases Infidelity. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1195-1199.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating Autonomy From Individualism and Independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110.
