Scientists
watch
the
brain
"battle
itself"
as
it
decides
between
competing
choices
Posted
Oct.
14,
2004
Special
to
World
Science
You
walk
into
a
room
and
spy
a
plate
of
doughnuts
dripping
with
chocolate
frosting.
But
wait:
You
were
saving
your
sweets
allotment
for
a
party
later
today.
If
it
feels
like
one
part
of
your
brain
is
battling
another,
it
probably
is,
according
to
a
newly
published
study.
Researchers
at
four
universities
found
two
areas
of
the
brain
that
appear
to
compete
for
control
over
behavior
when
a
person
attempts
to
balance
near-term
rewards
with
long-term
goals.
The
research
involved
imaging
people's
brains
as
they
made
choices
between
small
but
immediate
rewards
or
larger
awards
that
they
would
receive
later.
The
study
grew
out
of
the
emerging
discipline
of
neuroeconomics,
which
investigates
the
mental
and
neural
processes
that
drive
economic
decision-making.
The
study
was
a
collaboration
between
Jonathan
Cohen
and
Samuel
McClure
at
Princeton's
Center
for
the
Study
of
Brain
Mind
and
Behavior;
David
Laibson,
professor
of
economics
at
Harvard
University;
and
George
Loewenstein,
professor
of
economics
and
psychology
at
Carnegie
Mellon
University.
Their
study
appears
in
the
Oct.
15
issue
of
the
research
journal
Science.
"This
is
part
of
a
series
of
studies
we've
done
that
illustrate
that
we
are
rarely
of
one
mind,"
said
Cohen,
also
a
faculty
member
at
the
University
of
Pittsburgh.
"We
have
different
neural
systems
that
evolved
to
solve
different
types
of
problems,
and
our
behavior
is
dictated
by
the
competition
or
cooperation
between
them."
The
researchers
examined
a
much-studied
economic
dilemma
in
which
consumers
behave
impatiently
today
but
prefer/plan
to
act
patiently
in
the
future.
For
example,
people
who
are
offered
the
choice
of
$10
today
or
$11
tomorrow
are
likely
choose
to
receive
the
lesser
amount
immediately.
But
if
given
a
choice
between
$10
in
one
year
or
$11
in
a
year
and
a
day,
people
often
choose
the
higher,
delayed
amount.
In
classic
economic
theory,
this
choice
is
irrational
because
people
are
inconsistent
in
their
treatment
of
the
day-long
time
delay.
Until
now,
the
cause
of
this
pattern
was
unclear,
with
some
arguing
that
the
brain
has
a
single
decision-making
process
with
a
built-in
inconsistency,
and
others,
including
the
authors
of
the
Science
paper,
arguing
that
the
pattern
results
from
the
competing
influence
of
two
brain
systems.
The
researchers
studied
14
Princeton
University
students
who
were
asked
to
consider
delayed
reward
problems
while
undergoing
functional
magnetic
resonance
imaging
(fMRI),
a
procedure
that
shows
what
parts
of
the
brain
are
active
at
all
times.
The
students
were
offered
choices
between
Amazon.com
gift
certificates
ranging
from
$5
to
$40
in
value
and
larger
amounts
that
could
be
obtained
only
by
waiting
some
period,
from
two
weeks
to
six
weeks.
The
study
showed
that
decisions
involving
the
possibility
of
immediate
reward
activated
parts
of
the
brain
influenced
heavily
by
brain
systems
that
are
associated
with
emotion.
In
contrast,
all
the
decisions
the
students
made
--
whether
short-
or
long-term
--
activated
brain
systems
that
are
associated
with
abstract
reasoning.
Most
important,
when
students
had
the
choice
of
an
immediate
reward
but
chose
the
delayed
option,
the
calculating
regions
of
their
brains
were
more
strongly
activated
than
their
emotion
systems,
whereas
when
they
chose
the
immediate
reward,
the
activity
of
the
two
areas
was
comparable,
with
a
slight
trend
toward
more
activity
in
the
emotion
system.
The
researchers
concluded
that
impulsive
choices
or
preferences
for
short-term
rewards
result
from
the
emotion-related
parts
of
the
brain
winning
out
over
the
abstract-reasoning
parts.
"There
are
two
different
brain
systems
and
one
of
them
kicks
in
as
you
get
really
proximate
to
the
reward,"
McClure
said.
The
finding
supports
the
growing
view
among
economists
that
psychological
factors
other
than
pure
reasoning
often
drive
people's
decisions.
"Our
emotional
brain
has
a
hard
time
imagining
the
future,
even
though
our
logical
brain
clearly
sees
the
future
consequences
of
our
current
actions,"
Laibson
said.
"Our
emotional
brain
wants
to
max
out
the
credit
card,
order
dessert
and
smoke
a
cigarette.
Our
logical
brain
knows
we
should
save
for
retirement,
go
for
a
jog
and
quit
smoking.
To
understand
why
we
feel
internally
conflicted,
it
will
help
to
know
how
myopic
and
forward-looking
brain
systems
value
rewards
and
how
these
systems
talk
to
one
another."
The
findings
also
may
cast
light
on
other
forms
of
impulsive
behavior
and
drug
addiction.
"Our
results
help
explain
how
and
why
a
wide
range
of
situations
that
produce
emotional
reactions,
such
as
the
sight,
touch
or
smell
of
a
desirable
object,
often
cause
people
to
take
impulsive
actions
that
they
later
regret,"
Loewenstein
said.
Such
psychological
cues
are
known
to
trigger
dopamine-related
circuits
in
the
brain
similar
to
the
ones
that
responded
to
immediate
rewards
in
the
current
study.
Concerning
addiction,
said
Loewenstein,
the
findings
help
explain
some
aspects
of
the
problem,
such
as
why
addicts
become
so
focused
on
immediate
gratification
when
they
are
craving
a
drug.
The
dopamine-related
brain
areas
that
dominated
short-term
choices
among
the
study
subjects
also
are
known
to
be
activated
when
addicts
are
craving
drugs.
The
researchers
are
now
trying
to
pin
down
what
kinds
of
rewards
and
how
short
a
delay
are
needed
to
trigger
the
dopamine-related
reaction.
Their
ultimate
goal
is
to
better
understand
how
the
emotion-related
and
calculating
systems
interact
and
to
understand
how
the
brain
governs
which
system
comes
out
victorious.