A new qualitative study finds that people who cannot forgive themselves remain trapped in vivid, ongoing replay of past mistakes and oscillate between denying responsibility and accepting it in ways that deepen shame rather than heal it. The research, published in Self & Identity, analysed first‑person narratives from 80 U.S. adults and identified four recurring psychological patterns — being “stuck” in the past, conflicted personal agency, threats to social‑moral identity, and avoidant coping — that help explain why self‑forgiveness is possible for some but out of reach for others (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …). The findings were reported in a public summary by PsyPost (New research reveals what makes self‑forgiveness possible or out of reach).
This topic matters to Thai readers because unresolved guilt and shame are central drivers of depression and anxiety everywhere, including Thailand, where mental‑health burdens and the aftershocks of the COVID pandemic remain large and policy makers are working to expand community support. A recent cross‑sectional study of Thai adults found elevated rates of depression, anxiety and stress after the COVID outbreak and strong links between mental‑health problems and poorer quality of life, underscoring the public‑health importance of understanding mechanisms such as self‑forgiveness that support emotional recovery (Mental health status and quality of life among Thai people after the COVID‑19 outbreak).
The researchers used a narrative, qualitative approach to examine lived experience rather than large‑scale survey scores. They recruited 80 adults through Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked participants to recall either a time when they had successfully forgiven themselves or a time when they could not. Forty‑one participants described being unable to self‑forgive and 39 described having done so. The events recounted spanned betrayals, caregiving regrets, accidents, personal failures and harms to others. The study combined reflexive thematic analysis with inter‑rater checks to extract psychological patterns from these stories (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …).
Four themes stood out. First, people who could not forgive themselves experienced the past as if it were still happening: memories replayed with the same emotional intensity and a persistent sense of being immobilised. Those who had self‑forgiven described a clear forward shift, retaining regret but no longer being consumed by it. Second, the study highlighted a tension around agency: some people protect their moral image by minimizing responsibility, but that avoidance undermines their sense of control; others accept responsibility fully and are overwhelmed by shame. Third, threats to social‑moral identity — the fear of no longer being a “good person” — drove self‑punishing behaviours for those who remained stuck. Fourth, coping styles diverged: avoidance and suppression prolonged suffering, while deliberate meaning‑making, talking with others, and emotionally working through the event supported self‑forgiveness (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …, New research reveals what makes self‑forgiveness possible or out of reach).
The study also reported an intriguing behavioural signal: participants who could not forgive themselves spent, on average, more time writing about the event, suggesting greater cognitive and emotional complexity. Those who had forgiven themselves tended to describe an active decision to release the hold of the past and to use the experience to recommit to values — a subtle but important difference between being overwhelmed and purposefully integrating the mistake. These narrative differences point to therapeutic targets beyond simple symptom reduction (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …).
Clinical and academic commentators say the study fills a gap by focusing on the subjective experience of being “stuck” in self‑blame. The authors caution that their interpretation was shaped by theoretical lenses and that the sample — English‑speaking U.S. adults recruited online — limits cultural generalisability. Nevertheless, the analysis gives clinicians a clearer vocabulary for the common but understudied problem of chronic self‑condemnation (New research reveals what makes self‑forgiveness possible or out of reach).
For Thailand, the findings have immediate relevance. The country faces persistent mental‑health needs: studies after the pandemic show substantial prevalences of depression, anxiety and stress and clear links between mental disorders and lower quality of life, especially among people who experienced job or income loss or bereavement during the pandemic (Mental health status and quality of life among Thai people after the COVID‑19 outbreak). In a culture where family duties, “saving face,” and religious concepts such as karma and moral responsibility carry strong weight, the social‑moral identity threats highlighted in the study can be magnified. That combination — intense personal responsibility plus fear of social judgment — may make self‑forgiveness particularly difficult for some Thais.
Thai cultural traditions, including Buddhist practices of reflection and the community role of temples and elders, can both hinder and help. On one hand, strong expectations about family duty and moral conduct may deepen shame after perceived failings. On the other, Buddhist frameworks that emphasise compassion, impermanence and intentional repair can provide culturally resonant pathways to self‑forgiveness if integrated sensitively into care. Mental‑health services in Thailand that ignore these cultural levers risk missing opportunities to translate psychological insights into effective support. Internationally tested therapeutic approaches — like self‑compassion training, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and narrative or meaning‑making therapies — could be adapted to Thai settings in collaboration with community and religious leaders to reduce stigma and improve uptake.
Practically, the study suggests several clinical and policy implications that are directly actionable for clinicians, community workers and policy makers in Thailand. First, screening for persistent self‑condemnation and maladaptive avoidance should be added to routine mental‑health assessments in primary care and community clinics because unresolved guilt is a known driver of depression and lower quality of life (Mental health status and quality of life among Thai people after the COVID‑19 outbreak). Second, training for mental‑health workers should include assessment techniques that distinguish between denial (which protects moral identity) and over‑acceptance (which can lead to self‑erosion). Third, therapeutic programmes that emphasise “working through” guilt — safe emotional processing, reparative actions where possible, and meaning reconstruction — deserve investment because the study found these strategies more likely to support long‑term forgiveness than distraction alone (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …).
Community approaches matter too. Temple‑based outreach, community mental‑health volunteers, and family‑centred interventions can create supportive spaces where people can acknowledge harm, make amends, and receive social reintegration — a crucial counterweight to the isolation that fuels shame. Public health messaging that reframes mistakes as opportunities for learning rather than proof of unworthiness could be effective when developed with local religious and civic partners. These steps align with Thailand’s broader suicide‑prevention and mental‑health strategies that call for whole‑of‑society action to reduce stigma and expand care access (Suicide prevention in Thailand: A whole‑of‑society approach — WHO).
The study also helps clinicians refine treatment goals. Rather than aiming only for symptom relief, therapists can set specific, measurable objectives around agency and moral identity: for example, helping patients to identify what they could have controlled, what they could not, and to reframe moral self‑concept so that “being a good person” can coexist with acknowledged past mistakes. Techniques that engage meaning‑making — journalling, structured reparative actions, family dialogue where safe — mirror the successful stories reported by those who did achieve self‑forgiveness in the study (What makes self‑forgiveness so difficult? Understanding …).
Limitations are important to note. The original study sampled English‑speaking U.S. adults online; cultural differences in shame, communal values and religious meaning mean the precise dynamics may differ in Thailand. The study’s qualitative design is strength for depth but not for estimating how common each pathway is in the population. Translating the findings into Thai practice therefore requires local research — including qualitative interviews with Thai patients and families — to adapt language and interventions to cultural norms and local health‑system realities (New research reveals what makes self‑forgiveness possible or out of reach).
In the near term, Thai clinics and mental‑health programmes should pilot culturally adapted forgiveness‑focused modules within existing depression and anxiety services. These pilots can test simple measures: screening for persistent self‑condemnation, brief training for primary‑care nurses in compassionate enquiry, temple‑community partnerships for group reflection, and outcome tracking focused on quality‑of‑life improvements as well as symptom change. If pilots are promising, scaling through provincial mental‑health networks and integrating modules into community health volunteer training would be logical next steps, backed by evaluation and adaptation. Research partnerships between Thai universities and mental‑health services can collect the evidence Thailand needs to make these interventions routine (Mental health status and quality of life among Thai people after the COVID‑19 outbreak).
For individuals who feel trapped in self‑blame, practical steps that echo the study’s findings may help: allow yourself to feel the pain rather than suppressing it; talk with a trusted person or clinician; differentiate what you genuinely controlled from what you did not; make reparative actions where possible; and, when appropriate, reframe the experience into a lesson that strengthens your future behaviour. Community and religious supports in Thailand can reinforce these steps through messages of compassion and reintegration, not only moral reproach.
The new study offers an important clinical insight: self‑forgiveness is not simply a personal choice but a psychological process that requires negotiating agency and moral identity, tolerating painful emotions, and reconstructing meaning. For Thai society — where family roles, moral duty and spiritual frameworks are central — adapting these findings to local practice could reduce prolonged suffering and improve quality of life for many who remain stuck in guilt and shame. Policymakers, health professionals and community leaders should consider integrating forgiveness‑focused approaches into Thailand’s expanding mental‑health agenda as an evidence‑informed route to healing.