A brief laboratory experiment with common marmosets — small South American monkeys — has underscored a striking possibility: the pull of screens may come less from the meaningful content we expect and more from the simple, repeatable sensory changes that screens produce. In a 2025 study that placed tablets showing tiny silent videos in marmosets’ cages, animals learned to tap images simply to make the image enlarge and to hear chattering sounds; no food, treats or other conventional rewards were offered, yet eight of ten marmosets acquired the tapping behaviour and some continued to tap even when the audiovisual consequence was replaced by a blank screen study link. The result resonates with human reports of “mindless” scrolling and compulsive checking: the form of interaction and the unpredictability of what the screen does next can be reinforcing, independent of meaningful gain. That insight — drawn from our primate relatives — helps explain why so many people in Thailand and around the world lose track of time on phones and social apps, and it points toward practical steps individuals, families and policy-makers can take to reclaim attention and wellbeing.
The marmoset experiment was straightforward but revealing. Researchers placed an iPad in each animal’s cage showing nine small, silent videos of different nonhuman primates; touching any video caused that video to zoom and play primate chattering sounds. After two months of short daily sessions, eight of the ten marmosets began to touch the screen regularly; when the audiovisual consequence was later removed and replaced by a black screen some animals reduced touching while several continued to touch anyway, suggesting that the act of interacting and the visual change itself had become a sufficient reinforcer for some subjects study link. The finding supports the idea advanced in public discussion and behavioural science that screens — through rapid changes, sounds, and intermittent new content — create a loop of engagement that does not require conventional rewards like food. As the commentary in Psychology Today summarised, the study “suggests that the interaction itself and the change on the screen were enough to keep them going” and that “the pull of a screen is not something unique to humans” Psychology Today commentary.
For Thai readers the finding connects to familiar everyday scenes. On the Skytrain during rush hour, at a family meal in a Bangkok restaurant, or while waiting in line at the bank, it’s common to see people absorbed in short clips, feeds and message notifications. Thailand has high digital engagement: as of January 2024, around 68.3% of the population were active social media users and mobile phones remain the dominant device for internet access across age groups Digital 2024: Thailand. Those patterns make the question of why screens grab and hold attention especially relevant for public health, schooling, workplace productivity and family life in Thailand.
Behavioural scientists have long described a mechanism that helps explain how unpredictable rewards can sustain repetitive behaviour: intermittent or variable reinforcement. Platforms and apps are engineered to produce novelty — new posts, notifications, changing visuals, sounds and likes — often on schedules that are unpredictable to the user. That unpredictability creates a strong drive to check again, because the “next” swipe might deliver a particularly interesting or rewarding item. Reviews and research syntheses have likened social feeds and algorithmic deliveries to “ludic loops” or slot-machine-like variable reward schedules that amplify engagement by maximizing anticipatory arousal in neural reward circuits review on reward variability and by leveraging social rewards such as approval, comparison and fear of missing out Wadsley et al., review. Neuroscience reviews published in 2024–2025 have highlighted how adolescent brains, in particular, are sensitive to social reward and novelty — relevant to educators and parents concerned about younger Thais’ screen habits neuro review 2025.
Crucially, the marmoset data push the idea further: it may not be social feedback or deep content alone that hooks us. In the marmosets, plain audiovisual feedback — enlargement of an image and a chattering sound — sufficed. In human terms, that corresponds to the micro-rewards we experience when an image expands, a video autoplays, a notification tone sounds, or the feed refreshes with something new. Psychological surveys and experimental work show multiple motives for social media use — from self-expression and relationship maintenance to escapism and passing time — but when checking frequency and problematic use are modelled, social rewards (likes, approval, comparison), anticipatory enjoyment, and habitual passing time explain much of the compulsive checking behaviour Wadsley et al. review. In short: platforms deliver sensory and social events that together form a potent mix of reinforcement; the marmoset study isolates the sensory-change component as a powerful factor in itself.
Experts emphasise that not all heavy screen use is inherently harmful; context and motive matter. The survey literature notes that deliberate, socially meaningful uses (e.g., maintaining relationships, coordinated study) are less likely to be linked with harms than mindless, habitual checking driven by social reward-seeking and boredom Wadsley et al. review. That nuance matters for Thai schools and workplaces: encouraging purposeful digital practices is different from blanket screen bans. Still, the possibility that the interface itself — independent of content — can be reinforcing raises new challenges for interventions that focus only on content (for example, deleting one app and replacing it with another that uses the same engagement mechanics).
Thailand-specific consequences extend across age groups. Adolescents in Thailand already show rising concerns over sleep, concentration and mental health linked to nighttime phone use; teachers report distraction in classrooms and parents worry about disrupted family interactions. Public-safety issues arise as well: distracted walking and driving remain hazards, and researchers elsewhere have documented accidents tied to phone use while driving. The marmoset findings suggest that simple, sensory triggers (notification sounds, screen motion) may be the minimal elements that prompt repeated checking even when the user knows there is no benefit. That has implications for road-safety campaigns, workplace policies (e.g., meeting etiquette and device policies), and school rules around device use during class.
Historically and culturally, Thai social life places high value on interpersonal presence and respect: practices of communal eating, temple observances and family rituals emphasise face-to-face connection. Yet modern digital routines can interrupt those rituals. A practical illustration: many Thais regard offering and receiving blessings, or sharing khlong (stories), as vital social acts; when screens claim attention during those moments, it can feel jarring — not only a distraction but a violation of cultural norms of presence. Recognising the screen’s pull as partly sensory makes it easier to design culturally sensitive nudges: for example, a family’s shared rules around “no phones on the table” echo longstanding norms about attention in communal settings and can now be framed as reclaiming cultural practices from engineered engagement.
Looking ahead, the marmoset result suggests several likely developments. First, scientific attention will continue to probe the minimal features of screen interfaces that produce reinforcement, complementing epidemiological and survey work on usage patterns and harms. Second, regulators and platform designers may increasingly face pressure to reduce features that promote involuntary engagement: experiments like removing public like counts, trials of “time well spent” defaults, limits on autoplay or infinite scroll, and stronger Do Not Disturb defaults are already being discussed and piloted internationally. Third, public-health and education initiatives will likely shift toward teaching metacognitive awareness about interaction patterns: helping people notice that they are reacting to screen changes rather than pursuing meaningful outcomes, and providing simple behavioural tools to interrupt that cycle.
For Thai readers there are practical, evidence-informed steps to reduce involuntary screen engagement and regain time and attention. These steps echo behavioural findings (including the marmoset implication that sensory change itself is reinforcing) and public-health recommendations:
- Create sensory friction: turn off notification sounds and haptics for non-essential apps; disable autoplay for videos and set feeds to stop after a fixed number of items. Reducing immediate audiovisual feedback breaks the simple loop the marmoset tapped into.
- Build device-free rituals tied to Thai cultural moments: declare “no-phone” times at family meals, during temple visits, when greeting elders, and before bedtime. Framing these as cultural-preservation practices helps with social buy-in.
- Use phone settings and apps to set limits: both Android and iOS have Digital Wellbeing / Screen Time tools to cap app use and schedule downtime. Consider grayscale mode to reduce the visual pull of colourful feeds.
- Replace reactive checking with brief planned checks: schedule two or three short times a day to catch up rather than keeping the phone accessible for continuous checking. Use calendar reminders in Thai language to reinforce habit.
- For parents and educators: teach meta-awareness — the habit of asking “Am I looking for something meaningful, or am I reacting to the screen?” — and model device manners. Schools can incorporate short lessons on how apps use variable reward structures, like a simple classroom demo showing unpredictable rewards.
- Employers and meeting organisers: adopt norms such as “laptops and phones away for the first 10 minutes” in meetings to reduce reflexive checking and improve concentration.
- For policy-makers: consider promoting design standards that limit autoplay, infinite scroll and persistent notifications for services targeting children and adolescents; consult international developments such as trials to hide public like counts or restrict engagement features for minors.
The marmoset experiment is not an argument to demonise technology — the animals’ curiosity and the human capacity for connection via screens remain valuable — but it is a useful reminder that part of the problem is mechanistic and solvable. The devices and platforms have features that exploit basic reinforcement principles; once we recognise that, it becomes easier to build countermeasures that change the environment rather than blaming users alone.
The research also points to lines of further inquiry that are immediately relevant for Thailand: longitudinal studies of adolescent mental health and smartphone mechanics in Thai schools; randomized trials of “attention-first” interventions in family and workplace settings; and culturally tailored public-awareness campaigns that connect digital habits to Thai values of presence and mutual respect. For scientists and policy-makers, expanding studies beyond self-report and correlational surveys toward behavioural experiments — including crossover designs and real-world interventions — will yield stronger evidence about cause and effect, and about which changes actually work.
In sum, a small tablet and a simple zoom-and-chatter response in a marmoset cage have a big lesson: interaction mechanics matter. If a zoom and a sound can sustain behaviour in a monkey, it is hardly surprising that bright screens and constant novelty hook human attention. For Thai households, classrooms and workplaces, the practical response is to reduce reflexive sensory cues, restore shared rituals of presence, and teach awareness of why screens feel so compelling. Those steps can help Thais keep the benefits of connectedness while limiting the costs of attention lost to devices that were designed to keep us scrolling.
Sources: the marmoset experiment is available as “Touch Behavior with Audiovisual Stimulus Consequences in the Common Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)” escholarship; a summary commentary appeared in Psychology Today Psychology Today; reviews on reward variability and engineered engagement are discussed in the literature Engineered highs: Reward variability (ScienceDirect) and on reward motives for social networking use Wadsley et al., PMC review; Thailand digital statistics referenced from DataReportal’s Digital 2024: Thailand report Digital 2024: Thailand.