- University of Bologna research links poor decisions to brain response to biological cues
- Study identifies sign-trackers attracted to reward cues and goal-trackers focused on rewards
- Sign-trackers update beliefs slowly, causing biased and less flexible decision-making
Have you ever wondered why some people, including yourself or your friends, often make poor decisions? Researchers at the University of Bologna may have found part of the answer, linking it to how the brain responds to certain biological cues, reported Newsweek.
Led by Giuseppe di Pellegrino, the team studied associative learning and maladaptive decision-making. Their research shows that the cues individuals rely on when making choices can determine whether the outcome is good or bad.
This study focused on two types of decision-makers- sign-trackers and goal-trackers.
Sign-trackers are attracted to cues that signal a reward and move toward them, while goal-trackers ignore these cues and head straight for the reward.
People who rely more on surrounding cues, such as images or sounds-a process called Pavlovian learning-often have difficulty updating their beliefs or changing learned associations, especially when these cues indicate risky outcomes. Over time, this can lead to consistently poor decisions.
To understand this process, the researchers used eye-tracking, pupillometry, and computational modeling. They found that sign-trackers, who are attracted to reward-related cues, change their beliefs more slowly, making their decisions biased and less flexible. This explains why some people adopt rigid behaviours, often seen in attachment or compulsive disorders.
The study used a modified Pavlovian-instrumental transfer paradigm, consisting of three phases. In the Pavlovian learning phase, participants learned which visual cues predicted which outcomes. In the instrumental learning phase, they learned which actions led to rewards. Finally, the transfer phase examined whether the learned cues influenced their decisions. During this phase, participants were shown two displays of a slot machine.
The results showed that sign-trackers allowed reward-related cues to have a strong influence on their behaviour. These cues acted like "motivational magnets," attracting attention and hindering correct decision-making. In contrast, goal-trackers adapted quickly, effectively updated their values, and avoided unhealthy behaviours.
The study also shows how chronic cue-related relationships can contribute to poor decision-making over time. In people with compulsive disorder or addiction, this connection between cues and decision-making can reinforce harmful patterns. This research reflects behaviors often seen in addiction, where cues continue to influence behavior despite negative consequences.
This study helps understand why some people repeatedly make poor decisions and may be helpful in developing strategies to reduce unhealthy behaviour.
