DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114865
In a groundbreaking investigation, new research published in the prestigious ‘Behavioural Brain Research’ journal sheds light on how human behavior is influenced by reward-paired cues—stimuli that predict a reward—in the context of risk-taking decisions. Conducted by a team of scientists at the University of British Columbia, the study dissects individual variations in response to such cues and their potential implication for understanding addiction behaviors in humans.
Human Phenotypes: Sign-Tracking vs. Goal-Tracking
The study explores two phenotypically defined behavior patterns known as sign-tracking and goal-tracking. These patterns have long been observed in animal research, where sign-trackers are known to attribute high incentive salience to reward-predictive cues, meaning they mostly focus on the signals that predict a reward, like the light in a Skinner box preceding food. Goal-trackers, conversely, focus on the location or the source of the reward (the food itself), suggesting lower incentive salience attribution to the cues.
In rodents, these behavioral patterns have been linked to addiction features, spurring curiosity about their translatability to human addiction and risk behavior.
Cues and Decision Making in Humans
The research team, led by Mariya V. Cherkasova, carried out a series of experiments to explore if and how sign- and goal-tracking behaviors modulate the effects of reward-paired cues on human decision making, specifically in a risk-taking context. The reward-paired cues included money images and casino jingles that were either presented (cued) or not presented (uncued) with the offering of rewards in a binary choice task.
The experiment leveraged a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm and carefully measured the participants’ eye gaze fixation on the reward-predictive cues versus the location of impending reward delivery. By analyzing the participants’ choices and gaze patterns, the researchers could determine their propensity towards sign-tracking or goal-tracking.
Study Results Diverge from Animal Research
Contrary to what has been consistently seen in animal research, where sign-trackers are more influenced by cues, the human study revealed surprising results. Across the two studies conducted, although reward cues did lead to riskier choices, sign-tracking was not associated with such risk-prone behavior.
Unexpectedly, it was goal-tracking—typically associated with less focus on the cues—that was significantly linked with greater risk-promoting effects of cues, but only in the first study. The second study did not show a significant connection, but the direction of the findings remained consistent with the first.
Implications for Addiction and Behavioral Interventions
These insights challenge established theories about behavior and addiction, particularly the assumed vulnerability of sign-trackers to the influence of reward cues. Significantly, the findings suggest that other psychological or neurobiological mechanisms could be at play when humans interact with stimulus-rich environments that signal rewards—the very environments often mimicked in gambling scenarios and potentially, in addictive substance use.
Knowing that goal-trackers may also be susceptible to such cue-induced risk-taking opens up new realms of research into cognitive and emotional factors that might govern this response. This could include exploring preexisting attitudes toward risk, emotional regulation capabilities, or even socio-cultural influences that modulate individual responses to rewards and risk-taking.
Further Research
This study serves as a stepping-stone for further inquiries into the complex landscape of human decision making in the presence of reward-paired cues. Given the discrepancy between human and animal research findings, there is a strong need for additional investigations that could provide a broader multidimensional understanding of how cues affect human behavior.
The Role of Interdisciplinary Collaborations
As the world becomes increasingly saturated with stimuli designed to captivate and influence behavior, interdisciplinary collaborations between psychology, neuroscience, and even socio-economics become pivotal in parsing out the nuances of human behavior in response to rewards. The current study stands as testament to the potential of such collaborative efforts in unraveling the intricate tapestry of human decision making.
The intricacies of this research are prompting discussions across academic and clinical fields, sparking conversations around practical applications in addiction therapy, casino regulation, and even marketing practices. Understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying risk behaviors could revolutionarily alter support systems and interventions for individuals vulnerable to addiction.
References
1. Cherkasova, M. V., Clark, L. L., Barton, J. J. S., Stoessl, A. J., & Winstanley, C. A. (2024). Risk-promoting effects of reward-paired cues in human sign- and goal-trackers. Behavioural Brain Research, 461, 114865. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.114865
2. Cherkasova, M. V., et al. (2018). Individual variation in incentive salience attribution and gambling-like behavior. The FASEB Journal, 32(1), 418.2.
3. Robinson, T. E., & Flagel, S. B. (2009). Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences. Biol Psychiatry, 65(10), 869-873. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.09.006
4. Boakes, R. A. (1977). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In H. Davis & H. M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian Interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Anselme, P., & Robinson, M. J. F. (2013). What motivates gambling behavior? Insight into dopamine’s role. Front Behav Neurosci, 7, 182. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00182
Keywords
1. Sign-tracking in humans
2. Goal-tracking behavior
3. Reward cues decision making
4. Risk-taking stimuli response
5. Addiction cue influence
This study stands as an important reminder that human behavior is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. While it may mirror patterns observed in the animal kingdom, there are distinct and essential differences to consider. Research such as this not only augments our understanding of human psychology but also serves critical societal interests by informing how best to structure environments, both physical and digital, to foster healthier behavioral outcomes.
