The Frontal Cortex

Dopamine and Future Forecasting

Ed Yong has a typically excellent post on a new paper that looks at how manipulating dopamine levels in the brain can change our predictions of future pleasure:

Tali Sharot from University College London found that if volunteers had more dopamine in their brains as they thought about events in their future, they would imagine those events to be more gratifying. It’s the first direct evidence that dopamine influences how happy we expect ourselves to be.

Sharot recruited 61 volunteers and asked them to say how happy they’d feel if they visited one of 80 holiday destinations, from Greece to Thailand. All of the recruits were given a vitamin C supplement as a placebo and 40 minutes later, they had to imagine themselves on holiday at half of the possible locations. After this bout of fanciful daydreaming, they had to take another pill but this time, half of them were given L-DOPA instead of the placebo. Again, they had to imagine themselves in various holiday spots.

The next day, Sharot brought the volunteers back. By this time, they would have broken down all the L-DOPA in their system. She asked them to choose which of two destinations they’d like to go to, from the set that they had thought about the day before. Finally, they rated each destination again.

By the end of the experiments, they perceived their imaginary holidays to be more enjoyable if they had previously thought about the locations under the influence of L-DOPA (while vitamin C, as predicted, had no effect). The implication is clear: think about the future with more dopamine in the noggin and you’ll imagine that you have a better time.

As I’ve noted before, the popular caricature of dopamine – it’s the hedonistic molecule in the brain, activated by sex, drugs and rock and roll – is slightly misleading. Dopamine neurons, it turns out, don’t care about pleasure per se – they’re much more interested in predicting pleasure, and then comparing our predictions to the actual event. The transactions of dopamine are largely about learning – finding a way to maximize our rewards – and not about mere decadence.

What I find so interesting about this experiment is that it neatly confirmed this theory of computational neuroscience. After all, the subjects didn’t feel happier after popping a pill of L-DOPA – boosting dopamine levels didn’t lead to instant gratification, like Huxley’s soma. Instead, it merely altered their predictions of future happiness.

But here’s the funny thing about those predictions: they tend to correlate pretty accurately with our actual experience. If you think you’re going to have a good time on vacation, then you probably will, just as we tend to enjoy foods and beverages and products that we expect to enjoy. (This is the consumer version of the placebo effect.) Here’s how I described similar phenomena in How We Decide:

Baba Shiv, a neuroeconomist at Stanford, supplied a group of people with Sobe Adrenaline Rush, an “energy” drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. (The drink contained a potent brew of sugar and caffeine which, the bottle promised, would impart “superior functionality”). Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. Shiv found that people who paid discounted prices consistently solved about thirty percent fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical. “We ran the study again and again, not sure if what we got had happened by chance or fluke,” Shiv says. “But every time we ran it we got the same results.”

Why did the cheaper energy drink prove less effective? According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin, or why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can’t tell the difference in blind taste tests. “We have these general beliefs about the world⎯for example, that cheaper products are of lower quality⎯and they translate into specific expectations about specific products,” said Shiv. “Then, once these expectations are activated, they start to really impact our behavior.

So the next time you buy something on sale, pop a pill of L-DOPA. It will increase your pleasure, if only because you expect it to.

Comments

  1. #1 royniles
    November 13, 2009

    It it is part of the assessment process that forms the expectations and then signals when that assessment has in effect chosen which of the available alternatives should best be pursued.

    “If you think you’re going to have a good time on vacation, then you probably will,” in part because the assessment process correctly predicted that you probably would.

  2. #2 OftenWrongTed
    November 13, 2009

    Albert Camus wrote about pleasant anticipation of a future event through his character Mersault in “A Happy Death.”

  3. #3 catgirl
    November 13, 2009

    To be more thorough, I would have liked to see the study done with a group who had the L-Dopa trial before the placebo trial. The problem with this is waiting for the L-Dopa to be cleared from the body first, but there’s probably some way to get around this. It’s possible that the order of the trials could have altered the out come (for example, looking at vacation destinations the first time might make people pay more attention the second time, or something like that). I think the results are valid, but the test could have been better.

  4. #4 fliippables
    November 13, 2009

    Baba Shiv study seems to be too general and does not address some categories of people. I am wondering if there were any personality tests done beforehand, and whether most of the subjects tested fall into “traditional consumer category”. I would suspect completely different results in “frugalista” group as well as “health supplement sceptics”. “Frugalistas” might find a product more pleasurable if they paid a sale price, and “health supplement sceptics” would show no difference in test results.
    For Sharot study it would be interesting to see whether prior mental conditioning could have similar effects to L-DOPA.

  5. #5 sleeprun
    November 18, 2009

    ….there are some very good, and i suppose the latest, vids on dopamine, which actually codes for UNEXPECTED rewards which makes sense….in an environment of “starvation”…effectively…finding new, unexpected sources of energy, primarily, would be very adaptive for the brain to reward…BIG time…take that into a developed world of “abundance”…(gawd i hate that word)…and the market’s pressure to serve those cravings….hey, everything all the time workz pretty well babee!!…down tumbles wall st….fueled with testosterone……..yipee!

    …oh yea, key seems to be a genetic deficit in a certain kind of dopamine receptor NOT the actual flow of the n-transmitter…i did NOT understand it all..

  6. #6 kim kardashian sex tape here
    November 30, 2010

    Great, Cheapest kim kardashian sex tape [url=http://www.lovespeaks.org/profile/kimkardashiansextape#1]Cheapest kim kardashian sex tape[/url], :-]],

  7. I have the same., http://www.gravatar.com/freekimpossiblesexca free kim possible sex comic information, rkyt,

  8. #8 cam sexe
    November 11, 2011

    Hey there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this website with us so I came to look it over. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m bookmarking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Excellent blog and superb design and style

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!