A groundbreaking study published in July 2025 is shedding light on a longstanding human behavior: the reluctance to publicly dismiss or excuse the wrongdoings of others, even when no one is directly harmed. The research, which has been reported by MedicalXpress, delves into why individuals hesitate to downplay moral transgressions in public settings, offering important insights into the complexities of social dynamics, moral judgment, and community cohesion.
This new study’s focus is significant for contemporary Thai society, where public expressions of morality and group harmony are longstanding values. Thai readers are likely to recognize the tension between wanting to maintain face (rak sa na) in social situations and the cultural emphasis on sanuk (enjoyment) and sabai (comfort), which sometimes encourage turning a blind eye to small misdeeds. The study’s findings raise questions about the pressures faced by individuals who witness ethical slip-ups—such as cheating, lying, or minor thefts—but choose not to excuse such behaviour publicly.
According to the research, most people experience a social aversion to openly excusing others’ moral lapses, even when those lapses seem harmless or understandable. The authors suggest that voicing lenience towards wrongdoing in communal contexts is commonly seen as risky—it can signal a lack of moral standards or expose someone to criticism from more judgmental peers. This dynamic aligns with Thailand’s intricate social codes, where maintaining social harmony sometimes requires silently acknowledging a wrongdoing without outwardly condoning it.
One of the study’s key findings is that participants—even those who privately believe a wrongdoing was minor—are much less likely to publicly downplay the incident when others are watching. The research team found that individuals feel a powerful impulse to appear principled and cautious about the community’s moral reputation. This aligns with trends observed in collectivist societies like Thailand, where group approval is highly prized and actions that potentially disrupt communal trust are discouraged.
A leading social psychologist involved in the study told MedicalXpress: “People fear that if they excuse a moral transgression too openly, others will question their own character or morals. There’s a strong incentive to go along with the group’s consensus or to stay silent rather than risk social costs.” In practical terms, this can be seen in day-to-day life—from online discussions about political or celebrity scandals, to workplace gossip, and even educational settings where students may hesitate to defend a peer suspected of cheating.
The research also highlighted differences in responses depending on the setting. In anonymous surveys or private conversations, participants were more willing to excuse or contextualize the transgressions. However, in settings where observers were present or the statement was made on record, lenient attitudes sharply declined. For Thailand, where “kreng jai” (consideration for others and avoidance of conflict) influences interactions, this finding suggests that public forums—such as town meetings, school assemblies, or social media—may naturally foster harsher moral judgments compared to private discussions.
Moral development experts in Thailand, such as prominent professors from leading universities, note that these patterns mirror local traditions. Buddhist teachings, for instance, encourage compassion (mettā) and understanding, but temple communities also promote accountability and public confession rituals. As a spokesperson for a Thai research university observed, “While Thai culture treasures forgiveness and understanding behind closed doors, public acknowledgment of wrongdoing and atonement are necessary for social restoration and harmony.”
The findings also open the door to discussing how justice and reconciliation processes might adapt in societies where saving face is central. In the context of Thai schools, for example, counsellors and administrators can apply this knowledge to develop programs that balance accountability with opportunities for private forgiveness, reducing the social stigma of admitting mistakes. In workplaces, human resources managers might use anonymous feedback tools to help employees navigate ethical grey areas collectively, while minimizing the dangers of public shaming.
Internationally, the study echoes similar results seen in the United States, Japan, and European countries, where concerns about public image and group reputation shape how people talk about moral issues. But as Thai academics warn, the rise of social media and open forums can exacerbate these tendencies by making every opinion instantly visible to large audiences, amplifying the risks of both judgment and misunderstanding.
Looking to the future, the study’s authors recommend further investigation into strategies that promote a culture of empathy and nuanced discussion, while still upholding community standards. For Thai society, the research offers timely guidance as debates about cancel culture, public shaming, and restorative justice gain attention. Meanwhile, educational campaigns that foster open, forgiving dialogues—in classrooms, workplaces, and online—could help bridge the gap between private mercy and public accountability.
For Thai readers concerned about their role in maintaining social harmony while supporting ethical conduct, the take-home message is clear: consider the reasons behind your reluctance to speak up or excuse others openly. There’s value in private empathy, but striving for respectful public dialogue ensures that compassion doesn’t come at the expense of justice. When confronted with a minor transgression, reflect carefully on the context, audience, and potential social impact before deciding on silence or a public response. In so doing, individuals can help create a society where both forgiveness and accountability have their rightful place.
To explore more about this research, see the original report on MedicalXpress.