Appetite, Consumption, and Choice in the Human Brain

Brian  Knutson; Uma R. Karmarkar

Chapter | The Interdisciplinary Science of Consumption | 2014

Appetite, Consumption, and Choice in the Human Brain

by Brian Knutson and Uma R. Karmarkar

Abstract

Although linked, researchers have long distinguished appetitive from consummatory phases of reward processing. Recent improvements in the spatial and temporal resolution of neuroimaging techniques have allowed researchers to separately visualize different stages of reward processing in humans. These techniques have revealed that evolutionarily conserved circuits related to affect generate distinguishable appetitive and consummatory signals, and that these signals can be used to predict choice and subsequent consumption. Review of the literature surprisingly suggests that appetitive rather than consummatory activity may best predict future choice and consumption. These findings imply that distinguishing appetite from consumption may improve predictions of future choice and illuminate neural components that support the process of decision making.

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Knutson, Brian, and Uma R. Karmarkar. "Appetite, Consumption, and Choice in the Human Brain." Chap. 9 in The Interdisciplinary Science of Consumption, edited by Stephanie D. Preston, Morten L. Kringelbach, and Brian Knutson, 163–184. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.

The way a choice set is constructed can have a significant influence on how individuals perceive and evaluate their options and make decisions between them. Here, I examine whether a “display set” of visible but unavailable options can exert these same types of influences on whether or not to choose a single (target) item. Across a series of experiments, purchase intent is increased when the display set and target are drawn from the same category but decreased when the display and target items are mismatched. This effect is shown to depend on perceived similarity, such that increasing display-target similarity increases purchase intent towards the target. Furthermore, contrary to the predictions made by previous neural and behavioral research on choice sets, the relative value and/or number of display-only items have no significant impact on these decisions. These findings reveal a novel choice behavior in commonly encountered settings such as online marketplaces.

Article | Scientific Reports | 2017

Blunted Ambiguity Aversion During Cost-Benefit Decisions in Antisocial Individuals

Joshua W. Buckholtz, Uma R. Karmarkar, Shengxuan Ye, Grace M. Brennan and Arielle Baskin-Sommers

Antisocial behavior is often assumed to reflect aberrant risk processing. However, many of the most significant forms of antisocial behavior, including crime, reflect the outcomes of decisions made under conditions of ambiguity rather than risk. While risk and ambiguity are formally distinct and experimentally dissociable, little is known about ambiguity sensitivity in individuals who engage in chronic antisocial behavior. We used a financial decision-making task in a high-risk community-based sample to test for associations between sensitivity to ambiguity, antisocial behavior, and arrest history. Sensitivity to ambiguity was lower in individuals who met diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Lower ambiguity sensitivity was also associated with higher externalizing (but not psychopathy) scores and with higher levels of aggression (but not rule breaking). Finally, blunted sensitivity to ambiguity also predicted a greater frequency of arrests. Together, these data suggest that alterations in cost-benefit decision-making under conditions of ambiguity may promote antisocial behavior.

Keywords: ambiguity; neuroscience; Neuroeconomics; choice; psychology; Decision choice and uncertainty; Behavior; Decision Choices and Conditions; Cost vs Benefits; Health Disorders;

Citation:

Buckholtz, Joshua W., Uma R. Karmarkar, Shengxuan Ye, Grace M. Brennan, and Arielle Baskin-Sommers. "Blunted Ambiguity Aversion During Cost-Benefit Decisions in Antisocial Individuals." Art. 2030. Scientific Reports 7 (2017). View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

Scientists have spent decades creating powerful and detailed descriptions of how people make decisions. Unfortunately, many of these theories make contradictory predictions and are difficult to understand and implement. We introduce the 4 Minds framework as a practical tool for understanding and applying the science of decision-making in the marketplace. We synthesize previous research on decision-making into four broad approaches customers can take to making choices. These four decision-making “Minds”—Ideal Point Mind, Market Comparison Mind, Local Comparison Mind, and Image Mind—lead to very different outcomes and behaviors. We have developed the 4 Minds framework to serve as a diagnostic tool to help identify which clusters of decision-making research are most likely to apply in any given situation. By learning how these decision-making Minds differ, and the factors and environments that precipitate each one, marketers can better anticipate and serve their intended customers.

Faculty & Research

Appetite, Consumption, and Choice in the Human Brain

Abstract

Citation:

More from these Authors