In the digital age, where social media’s influence is ever-expanding, many assume that people have become more susceptible to groupthink. However, a recent meta-analysis suggests otherwise, finding that social conformity has remained surprisingly consistent over nearly two decades, despite the explosion of digital networking. These findings, alongside cutting-edge brain imaging studies, are helping scientists unravel how and why individuals choose to align with—or deviate from—their peers, with major implications for Thai society navigating rapid social and technological change (Counterpunch, 2025).
Social conformity—our tendency to adjust our attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to match those of a group—has long fascinated psychologists, teachers, and policy makers. In Thailand, where collectivism and hierarchical respect remain deeply embedded in educational, professional, and family life, understanding what drives conformist behavior is more than academic. It shapes approaches to health campaigns, classroom dynamics, and even political participation. The latest meta-analysis, covering studies from 2004 to 2022, reveals that while social influences certainly exist, their power has not fundamentally increased in the internet era. Researchers caution, though, that more investigations are needed to pinpoint the factors—such as culture, media, and peer pressure—that modulate conformity in different contexts.
Key to decoding these effects are advances in neuroscience. Using functional MRI (fMRI) scans, scientists can now watch real-time brain activity as people make decisions—shedding light on how social cues shape choices at the neural level. A pivotal 2012 study demonstrated a link between the volume of the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)—a brain region associated with value judgments—and a participant’s tendency to shift preferences to fit perceived social norms. In the experiment, participants were asked to rank their favorite songs, were exposed to fictitious ‘expert’ opinions, and then re-evaluated their choices. Those with a larger OFC showed greater willingness to conform, and neural activity spiked when their selections diverged from the so-called experts. “This anatomical correlate suggests that social conformity isn’t just learned, but also wired into specific areas of our brains,” commented researchers from the international team.
The OFC, located just above the eye sockets, acts as a kind of decision-making hub. It evaluates emotions, social relationships, and the consequences of potential actions. Neuroscientists are only beginning to untangle how the OFC orchestrates this complex process. A recent 2023 study mapped the interaction between the OFC and the sensory cortex as participants learned to reverse previously established hand-feeling patterns. Crucially, the OFC not only encoded when expectations were violated, but also signaled to the sensory cortex when a shift in behavior was needed—key for flexible decision-making.
This flexibility, or cognitive adaptability, is essential for survival and thriving in changing environments—a lesson with direct relevance for Thailand’s ongoing educational reforms, where rote learning is increasingly giving way to novel, adaptable curricula. “Behavioral flexibility underpins not only intellectual growth, but the capacity to respond constructively to social or technological disruption,” noted a leading Thai neuroscientist at a public university. The applicability of these findings is broad, from developing mental health interventions to improving pedagogy in Thai classrooms.
The history of OFC research is as dramatic as its recent advances. The famous case of 19th-century railway worker Phineas Gage, whose personality transformed after an iron rod destroyed part of his OFC, first revealed the role of this brain region in social processing and impulse control. Today, Thailand’s mental health professionals draw on such research to understand disorders like autism, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder—all linked to impaired flexible decision-making. Some treatments, such as pharmaceuticals that target OFC functions or magnetic brain stimulation, are already showing promise for a select group of patients worldwide (Counterpunch, 2025).
For Thai society, deeply rooted traditions meet a new world where external influences—from Korean pop culture to online misinformation—are just a screen tap away. Cultural values emphasizing “kreng jai” (considerate restraint to avoid conflict) and “phu yai–phu noi” (hierarchical relationships) often reinforce conformity, for both positive and negative ends. As a Bangkok-based sociologist observed, “On one hand, these tendencies encourage social cohesion; on the other, they may stifle creativity and critical dissent.” Global studies show these effects in voting patterns, public health responses, and student participation, raising questions for educators and policy makers in Thailand as the country prepares for an ever-more connected future.
Moreover, the neuroscientific insights into flexible vs. rigid decision-making are highly pertinent to public health campaigns battling issues like vaccine hesitancy or anti-smoking initiatives. If conformity can be mapped and measured, interventions can become more targeted. For instance, emphasizing the consensus among “trusted experts” may sway hesitant individuals—if their brain is primed to value such authority.
Looking ahead, researchers are seeking to harness this knowledge both to understand the Thai mind and to design tailored social interventions. The surge in global OFC research—the number of academic papers leaped from just a dozen per year in the late 1980s to over 700 in 2020—signals a rapid deepening of expertise. Local Thai universities and research hospitals are increasingly involved in cross-border scientific collaborations, aiming to bring culturally nuanced findings home.
Emerging questions remain: What precise role do local norms, digital echo chambers, or educational policies play in reinforcing or resisting conformity? How can schools nurture the kind of creative, independent thinking needed for 21st-century innovation—without breaking down the positive cohesion of Thai society? And as more is revealed about the brain biology of choice, will personalized interventions empower people to act more freely, or risk new forms of social manipulation?
For Thai readers, the most actionable takeaway is to foster environments—at home, in schools, and in workplaces—that balance respect for group harmony with support for individual expression and inquiry. Parents and teachers are encouraged to model critical thinking and positive dissent. Health professionals should leverage expert consensus messages, but also acknowledge and address the diverse cognitive styles that make up the Thai population. Finally, as neuroscience and digital culture continue to evolve, society must remain vigilant about the sources and motives of social influences.
Read further on the latest in brain research and social psychology by visiting Counterpunch, and consult reliable health and education resources for ongoing, science-based recommendations.