Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making

Abstract

Stimuli that are more predictive of subsequent reward also function as better conditioned reinforcers. Moreover, stimuli attributed with incentive salience function as more robust conditioned reinforcers. Some theories have suggested that conditioned reinforcement plays an important role in promoting suboptimal choice behavior, like gambling. The present experiments examined how different stimuli, those attributed with incentive salience versus those without, can function in tandem with stimulus-reward predictive utility to promote maladaptive decision-making in rats. One group of rats had lights associated with goal-tracking as the reward-predictive stimuli and another had levers associated with sign-tracking as the reward-predictive stimuli. All rats were first trained on a choice procedure in which the expected value across both alternatives was equivalent but differed in their stimulus-reward predictive utility. Next, the expected value across both alternatives was systematically changed so that the alternative with greater stimulus-reward predictive utility was suboptimal in regard to primary reinforcement. The results demonstrate that in order to obtain suboptimal choice behavior, incentive salience alongside strong stimulus-reward predictive utility may be necessary; thus, maladaptive decision-making can be driven more by the value attributed to stimuli imbued with incentive salience that reliably predict a reward rather than the reward itself.

Gambling in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): The effect of cues signaling risky choice outcomes

“…Overall, monkeys were more likely to favor the risky option under the signaled condition compared to the unsignaled condition. This is consistent with research found frequently with pigeons (e.g., Zentall & Stagner, 2011), rats (e.g., Chow et al, 2016), and humans (e.g., Lalli et al, 2000), and this finding supports the first prediction. This result in macaques is similar to research showing that monkeys prefer options that provide information (signaled) over options that do not provide information (unsignaled) about an upcoming outcome.…”

“…This “signal” has been shown to increase preference for the risky option in pigeons (e.g., Zentall & Stagner, 2011), starlings (Vasconcelos, Monteiro, & Kacelnik, 2015), rats (Chow, Smith, Wilson, Zentall, & Beckmann, 2016; although the effect was not observed in earlier studies with rats where the delay signal did not elicit sign-tracking; Trujano, & Orduña, 2015), and 3-year-old children with mild developmental delays (Lalli, Mauro, & Mace, 2000). In instances where the risky choice results in a delayed and probabilistic outcome there exists the opportunity for the organism to wait in anticipation of the outcome.…”

Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans

“…Relatively optimal performance on neutral filler trials that was similar between groups further establishes a specificity for this bias indicating that it is unlikely attributable to a more global impairment in rational decision-making. Cue reactivity research in the animal laboratory has also described similar effects wherein cues alter sensitivity to primary reinforcer value in a way that translates into disadvantageous decisionmaking (Chow et al, 2017;Smith et al, 2018;Zentall, 2014). For example, animal subjects presented with concurrent reinforcer choice tend to prefer choices that result in stronger conditioned reinforcers even when these choices are suboptimal (i.e., produce lower overall rates of primary reinforcement) (Zentall, 2014).…”

Does a negative discriminative stimulus function as a punishing consequence?

“…That is, choice can become 'suboptimal' (Spetch, Belke, Barnet, Dunn & Pierce, 1990;Zentall, 2014). Suboptimal choice appears to be driven partially by a preference for locally richer alternatives, and partially by the availability of discriminative stimuli signaling reinforcement contingencies (Chow, Smith, Wilson, Zentall & Beckmann 2017;Zentall & Laude, 2013;Zentall & Stagner, 2011). The extent to which any discriminative stimulus functions as a punisher will depend upon what that stimulus predicts about the nature and probability of future events (see Baum, 2012;Cowie & Davison, 2016;Killeen & Jacobs, 2017;Shahan, 2017).…”