Think about this: Your favourite well-known individual ends up getting involved in a dispute. Even when the charges are serious, and the evidence is clear, you can’t help but make excuses. “Maybe it’s not as bad as it seems,” you convince yourself. “People make mistakes, right?” This reaction affects everyone, not just you, and is a deeply ingrained psychological process. Whether it’s small acts in our personal lives or major disparities in society, we usually overlook or excuse poor behaviour. But why do we do this? What does it tell us about human nature? Let’s look at the psychology of defending improper behaviour.
Cognitive Dissonance and Justification
Leon Festinger (1957) originated the theory of cognitive dissonance, which is one of the main reasons people justify poor behaviour. Conflicting views or behaviours can cause psychological discomfort for an individual, a phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance. They alter their views or justify the action to lessen this discomfort. When a well-known public figure is accused of wrongdoing, for instance, followers could find it difficult to balance their enthusiasm for them with the new accusations. They could minimise the charges or defend the actions by saying they were overblown or taken out of context to lessen the dissonance.
This impulse to act applies to interpersonal connections in addition to public personalities. We frequently find it difficult to reconcile our favourable opinion of a close friend with their destructive behaviour when they breach our trust. We could rationalise their actions by telling ourselves, “They were just having a bad day,” or “They didn’t mean to hurt me,” rather than confronting the truth.
Social Identity and In-Group Bias
According to Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s (1979) social identity theory, people group themselves and other people into social categories. To preserve group cohesiveness and safeguard their social identity, people are more inclined to overlook negative behaviour from in-group members.
Fandoms, sports, and politics all exhibit this phenomenon. For instance, while denouncing similar behaviour from opponents, political supporters may ignore unethical behaviour by their chosen leaders. This prejudice is also evident in the workplace, where workers may overlook wrongdoing by coworkers they relate to while criticising those they perceive as outsiders.
Furthermore, the propensity to overlook inappropriate behaviour can be strengthened by the concept of groupthink, which occurs when people suppress dissent out of a desire for peace. For instance, in cult-like settings, members would defend immoral behaviour to prevent social rejection.
Read More: The Puzzle of Self: Exploring Identity in a Demanding World
The Just-World Hypothesis
Melvin Lerner (1980) put up the just-world theory, which holds that people receive what they are due. Because of this cognitive bias, people tend to blame the victim or think the offender had a good motive for their poor behaviour. As an illustration, some people may claim that the victim’s activities caused the misconduct or bodily harm, which would excuse the perpetrator’s acts.
This idea contributes to the appearance of a predictable and equitable society. Injustices at work are another way that this bias shows up. Instead of acknowledging structural problems, underpaid or mistreated employees may be perceived as having “deserved” their circumstances because of alleged flaws.
Authority and Obedience
Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies from 1963 demonstrate how people are influenced by authoritative figures to justify or participate in inappropriate behaviour. Even if it means hurting other people, people usually obey commands from people they believe to be in a position of authority.
Read More: Understanding Milgram’s Experiment
This tendency is seen in business scandals, as workers defend unethical behaviour by pointing to supervisors’ instructions. It also clarifies past atrocities in which the perpetrators claimed they were merely carrying out orders. A related idea is the normalisation of deviance, which occurs when immoral actions progressively gain acceptance in a company because of a compliance-oriented culture. Workers may begin to justify dubious behaviour as “just the way things are.”
Moral Licensing
A psychological phenomenon known as “moral licensing” occurs when someone’s previous good deeds provide them a perceived moral credit that they might use to defend their future bad deeds. This impact clarifies why some people who perform good deeds could feel justified in acting immorally in other contexts.
A CEO with a reputation for generosity, for instance, might defend embezzlement by arguing that their prior good deeds outweigh their unethical behaviour. In a similar vein, those who consider themselves to be “good people” could overlook minor infractions like lying or cheating as unimportant. Everyday life can also exhibit moral licensing. After eating a nutritious meal, a person could feel justified in treating themselves to dessert. Although innocuous in certain situations, this way of thinking can be harmful when it comes to moral judgments.
The Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility
Because of the bystander effect and dispersion of responsibility, people are less inclined to step in when inappropriate behaviour takes place in a group environment. According to these ideas, which Darley and Latané (1968) examined that people tend to expect that others will act, which results in a lack of collective action.
This tendency is seen in cases of workplace harassment, where workers may see wrongdoing but choose not to report it because they believe someone else will take care of it. Online environments can also exhibit the bystander effect. Misinformation and cyberbullying spread quickly because people believe that someone else will step in. This habit is exacerbated by the internet’s supposed anonymity.
Read More: How Can Parents Address the Mental Health Effects of Cyberbullying?
Emotional Attachment and Personal Bias
Relationships may interfere with judgment, leading people to overlook inappropriate behaviour in others they care about. In friendships, intimate relationships, In family interactions, this prejudice is more pronounced. For instance, someone who values their friendship may overlook a friend’s dishonesty. Similarly, rather than making a child accountable for their misbehaviour, parents may defend it.
This is frequently influenced by the manipulation of emotions. For example, narcissistic people may take advantage of the emotional ties of their loved ones to avoid accountability. Victims who think they can “change” the victim may justify their actions.
Breaking the Cycle
Addressing psychological biases requires an understanding of them. Gaining the ability to think critically enables people to examine their own opinions and take into account different viewpoints before defending their actions. People can lessen the impact of unconscious biases in everyday interactions and judgments and make better decisions by carefully assessing events and identifying cognitive distortions.
Fostering ethical behaviour requires holding people accountable. Establishing limits and dealing with wrongdoing, especially when it is awkward, contribute to the development of a responsible culture. Promoting open communication makes it possible for people to voice their concerns about negative conduct in secure settings, guaranteeing that prejudices and immoral behaviour are addressed rather than disregarded or accepted.
To combat biases, it is crucial to support moral leadership and education. Ethical norms are reinforced when leaders and organisations that value honesty are supported. Furthermore, educating oneself and others about biases raises awareness and enables people to identify and successfully counteract them. A society with more knowledge is better able to combat bias and promote diversity.
Take Away
The process of justifying inappropriate behaviour is a complicated psychological one that is impacted by social dynamics, emotional variables, and cognitive biases. Gaining an understanding of these mechanisms might encourage more accountability by assisting people in identifying when they are using them to defend unethical behaviour. It takes awareness, critical thinking, and a readiness to question firmly held beliefs to address this issue. We can try to create a more moral society and gain a better understanding of why people overlook wrongdoing by combining psychological theory with real-world experiences.
References +
- Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Springer.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by W. G. Austin & S. Worchel. Brooks/Cole Publishing.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
FAQs
1. Why do we Defend bad behaviour from people we admire?
When a favourite celebrity, politician, or even a close friend does something wrong, we may excuse it to protect our positive image of them. This happens because accepting their flaws creates discomfort, so we justify their actions instead.
2. How does Cognitive Dissonance affect our daily decisions?
If we believe we’re honest but tell a small lie, we feel uncomfortable. To ease this, we might justify it by saying, “It was just a white lie.” This mental trick helps us avoid guilt but can lead to poor moral choices.
3. Why do people blame victims instead of holding the wrongdoer accountable?
If we hear about a scam or harassment case, we might say, “They should have been more careful.” This just-world bias makes us believe bad things only happen to those who “deserve” them, helping us feel safer but ignoring real injustices.
4. How does authority influence us to ignore wrongdoing?
At work or school, we might notice unfair treatment but stay silent because “it’s just how things work.” This happens because we’re wired to obey authority, making us reluctant to challenge rules, even when they’re unethical.
5. How can we stop making excuses for bad behaviour?
Next time you catch yourself defending someone’s wrong actions, ask: “Would I excuse this if someone else did it?” Learning to think critically, speak up, and hold people accountable helps create a more fair and honest society.
