Affect overrules virtue—recent psychological research is challenging the long-standing belief that honesty, warmth, and compassion are universally valued traits in leaders and individuals, showing that emotional appeal can be equally, if not more, persuasive. This finding holds sobering lessons for Thai society and global democracies, as new evidence reveals why these virtues sometimes take a back seat to style, energy, and emotional resonance.
For years, trustworthiness and empathy were seen as essential personal qualities, especially in politics and public life. According to recent scholarly work such as that cited by Psychology Today, qualities like honesty and caring once formed the bedrock of how leaders were judged and supported, shaping everything from workplace relationships to voter decisions (psychologytoday.com). However, as new evidence and expert commentary suggest, affective—or emotional—impact now increasingly sways opinions, sometimes eclipsing the importance of fact-checking and moral consistency.
This narrative is strikingly familiar to Thai readers who may have observed charismatic figures—be it in politics, media, or community settings—maintain support despite questionable honesty or a lack of compassion. These people are often described as lively, entertaining, or “characters.” As noted by psychology researchers such as Lausten & Bor (2017) and Nai et al. (2021), people will sometimes overlook factual accuracy, replacing critical evaluation with a gut-level fondness or emotional connection. Thai society mirrors this global trend: whether at family gatherings, village meetings, or political rallies, the compelling storyteller or provocative speaker often attracts a loyal following, even if their statements are dubious.
Psychologists attribute this phenomenon to a shift toward “personalization” in politics and public life—a trend first observed in Western democracies but now apparent worldwide (Coffé & von Schoultz, 2021). Personal style, emotional expressiveness, and performance increasingly shape how audiences perceive leaders. As one noted social psychologist explains, “What people lack in substance or veracity, they can make up for with affective presence—a kind of energy or charisma that many find irresistible, especially in an age of information overload.”
Some experts suggest this is because emotional shortcuts are adaptive in a complex world. Instead of deeply investigating a candidate’s policy, many voters and citizens use the perceived traits of leaders as shorthand—falling back on quick, emotional assessments rather than careful scrutiny. Hardy (2014) described this “trait shorthand” as a way for people to simplify decision-making, especially when time and energy are scarce (Taylor & Francis).
In Thailand, where social hierarchies and emotional connections are culturally significant, the implications are noteworthy. Educational and community leaders have observed that students and locals often respond most to teachers or officials who are energetic or engaging, even if those individuals are sometimes brusque or lack deep knowledge. The Bangkok Post spoke with a senior academic from a leading Thai university, who noted, “It’s not always the person who is most honest or kind who becomes the leader—it’s sometimes the one who makes everyone feel most strongly, whether that’s excitement, pride, or even controversy.”
From a cultural standpoint, this finding dovetails with long-held Thai concepts of “jai yen” (cool heart) and “sanuk” (fun), demonstrating that emotional resonance and entertainment value are culturally prized, sometimes as highly as virtue. Yet, this can lead to challenges when it comes to leadership accountability or fact-based decision-making, especially in an age where mis/disinformation travels fast.
However, a marked risk for Thai society—and any democracy—is that when affect outweighs honesty and compassion, the path is open for manipulative demagogues or entertainers to capture public trust while leaving important values and evidence-based policymaking behind. Political scientists and civic educators warn that this can erode public trust and polarize communities, as seen in recent global elections where candidates with questionable honesty appeal to emotional “base” voters over rational, fact-based discourse.
Looking to the future, the trend towards affective evaluation is likely to endure. Digital platforms, especially social media, amplify personal style and emotional currency even further, making it easier for entertaining personalities to eclipse substantive leaders. For Thai voters, parents, educators, and civic actors, the challenge lies in recognizing and balancing these dual currents: appreciating charismatic influence while demanding honesty and compassion as non-negotiable basics for leadership and community trust.
The actionable takeaway for Thai readers is clear: while it is natural and often enjoyable to be drawn to compelling communicators or dynamic personalities, it is vital not to let style overshadow substance. Actively questioning claims, seeking out evidence, and valuing honesty and compassion alongside affect can safeguard both personal relationships and the integrity of Thailand’s wider society. Educational institutions and media platforms can play a pivotal role by fostering both critical thinking and emotional intelligence—qualities that together form the backbone of resilient, healthy communities.
For further reading and fact sources, the original analysis from Psychology Today provides an accessible overview (psychologytoday.com), alongside cited work from Lausten & Bor (2017), Nai et al. (2021), Coffé & von Schoultz (2021), and Hardy (2014).