Why do some people continue making harmful choices, even when they’re fully aware of the negative consequences? A groundbreaking international study led by researchers at UNSW Sydney has shed light on this perplexing question, uncovering distinct behavioral types that dictate how individuals respond to negative outcomes. The findings, published in Communications Psychology and summarized by MedicalXpress on July 21, 2025, suggest that for a significant group, the inability to break bad habits stems not from lack of motivation, but from a subtle failure to connect action and consequence—even after being shown exactly where they’re going wrong (MedicalXpress).
This research is particularly pertinent in Thailand, where public health messaging and social campaigns frequently assume that providing information alone can change behavior. Understanding why this doesn’t always work could reshape strategies to tackle issues like gambling, addiction, and chronic disease prevention throughout the country.
Led by a behavioral scientist at UNSW Sydney, the study involved a simple online learning game in which participants made choices that led to either rewards or punishments. Through observation of 267 people across 24 nations and a broad age range, researchers identified three main behavioral profiles. The “Sensitives” quickly learned which choices led to bad outcomes and adjusted their actions to avoid these. The “Unawares” initially failed to deduce the link but could pivot when given clear information about their errors. The third type, called “Compulsives,” persisted in making the same wrong choices—even after being explicitly told what the problem was.
According to the study’s lead researcher, “We found that some people just don’t learn from experience. Even when they’re motivated to avoid harm and are paying attention, they fail to realize their own behavior is causing the problem.” The online game required participants to choose between two planets, with one intermittently producing a loss of points. While most participants wised up after a few rounds or after being told the correct strategy, the Compulsives did not change their risky behaviors—even when they could accurately explain which choices led to bad results.
The phenomenon was not limited by culture, age, or background. Results mirrored those found in a previous study of Australian psychology students, but in the global study, about 27% of participants fell into the Compulsive category—a slight increase attributed to greater representation of participants over age 50, who tend to show decreased cognitive flexibility. This is especially relevant as Thailand’s population ages, with the proportion of adults over 60 steadily increasing (UNFPA Thailand).
One of the most striking findings emerged six months after the initial experiments, when participants repeated the game. Most individuals exhibited the same decision-making profiles, suggesting these patterns are deeply ingrained and stable over time. “It suggests these aren’t just random mistakes or bad days. They’re stable traits—almost like personality types. This is not to say they’re fixed, just that they may require intervention to break,” explained the UNSW research team.
The study’s implications stretch far beyond the context of a simple online game. “The patterns we’re seeing, where people ignore both experience and information, are similar to what we see in gambling and other compulsive behaviors,” said the research leader. For public health professionals in Thailand and worldwide, this poses a direct challenge: campaigns built solely on providing information—about the dangers of smoking, alcohol, overeating, or financial risks—may not reach the very people most in need of intervention.
The head scientist concluded, “We’ve shown that standard information campaigns work for most people—but not for everyone. For compulsive individuals, we may need a different kind of intervention.” These findings echo challenges faced by Thai health authorities in addressing entrenched public health issues like smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and rising rates of chronic, lifestyle-linked diseases such as diabetes and hypertension (WHO Thailand).
Thai society has a long history of educational campaigns designed to modify behavior, from televised road safety spots during Songkran to anti-smoking messages plastered throughout urban and rural districts. As the Bangkok Post has previously reported, these campaigns often succeed in raising awareness, yet their ability to transform deeply rooted behaviors, especially among high-risk groups, remains limited (Bangkok Post). The new research suggests a need for strategies that go beyond knowledge dissemination. Behavioral interventions such as personalized counseling, motivational interviewing, or structured support groups may prove more effective for those with compulsive tendencies.
Experts in cognitive and behavioral science emphasize the importance of “cognitive flexibility”—our ability to adapt thinking and update strategies when faced with new information. International studies consistently show that cognitive flexibility tends to decline with age, which could help explain why older adults, a rapidly growing demographic in Thailand, may be more susceptible to persistent, self-defeating behaviors (Frontiers in Psychology). For Thai policymakers and clinicians, this understanding makes a strong case for age-tailored interventions and more nuanced psychological support within the Universal Coverage Scheme and community health programs.
The persistence of harmful choices despite clear knowledge also resonates with cultural factors in Thailand, where concepts like “kreng jai” (the reluctance to impose on others or challenge authority) or “mai pen rai” (never mind, it’s OK) might sometimes reinforce patterns of inaction or resignation in the face of health advice. While cultural pride in harmony and tolerance is a Thai strength, public health campaigns may need to harness these traditions in constructive ways—such as family-based interventions or community peer support—to help individuals internalize new habits. Local case studies, such as the success of Buddhist temple-based mindfulness programs for addiction recovery, point to the effectiveness of culturally embedded approaches when dealing with compulsive behaviors (Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment).
Furthermore, the rise of online gambling and high-risk digital behaviors among Thai youth and adults accentuates the urgency of developing interventions that address more than just information gaps. Regulatory agencies and educators must combine digital literacy, behavioral insight, and community engagement to curb these new forms of compulsion.
Looking ahead, the new UNSW study’s authors caution against oversimplification: real life is far more complex than any laboratory game, but the underlying behavioral types uncovered are highly relevant. Integrating these insights into policy, the Thai Ministry of Public Health and allied organizations should invest in research-driven pilot programs—especially interventions targeting compulsive personality profiles. Partnerships with community leaders, religious organizations, and digital platforms could amplify the reach and impact of such efforts.
For Thai readers, the practical takeaway is twofold. First, if you notice yourself or a loved one repeatedly making the same mistakes despite knowing better, recognize that this may signal an ingrained behavioral trait, not simply “laziness” or “stubbornness.” Seeking help—through counseling, group support, or structured behavioral programs—can make a real difference. Second, public health messaging will continue to evolve, but true change often requires new approaches that bridge information and action.
In summary, understanding why some people persist in harmful behaviors despite knowing the risks is crucial for more effective, compassionate public health and education strategies—not only in Thailand, but around the world. As Thailand faces the challenges of an aging population, rising noncommunicable diseases, and shifting cultural landscapes, adapting our interventions to reach everyone—not just the “Sensitives”—is both a scientific necessity and a moral imperative.