Why Some People Keep Making Bad Choices and What Brain Science Is Revealing About It
Scientists have long wondered why some people repeatedly make decisions that work against their own interests, even when the risks are obvious and the negative outcomes are familiar. A recent neuroscience study offers fresh insight into this question, showing that the answer may lie in how strongly individuals rely on visual and auditory cues in their environment—and how well they can update their beliefs when those cues change meaning.
The research, led by Giuseppe di Pellegrino at the University of Bologna, explores how people learn associations between cues and outcomes, and why this learning process can sometimes push decision-making in unhealthy directions. The findings were published in The Journal of Neuroscience under the title Reduced Pavlovian Value Updating Alters Decision-Making in Sign-Trackers.
How Environmental Cues Shape Everyday Decisions
In daily life, people constantly rely on cues—sounds, images, colors, and patterns—to guide their choices. A green traffic light signals it’s safe to go. A notification sound suggests something important is waiting on your phone. Over time, the brain learns these associations automatically, allowing decisions to be made quickly and efficiently.
This type of learning is known as associative learning, and it usually works in our favor. When cues accurately predict outcomes, they help us navigate complex environments without overthinking every choice.
However, the new study highlights that not everyone uses these cues in the same way. Some individuals place much more weight on surrounding signals than others, and this heightened sensitivity can create problems—especially when the environment changes.
Sign-Trackers and Goal-Trackers Explained
The researchers focused on a well-established distinction in behavioral neuroscience between sign-trackers and goal-trackers.
- Sign-trackers are individuals who become strongly attracted to cues that predict rewards. Their attention is drawn to the signal itself—such as a sound or image—rather than the outcome it represents.
- Goal-trackers, on the other hand, focus more on the reward or result, using cues only as useful information rather than as drivers of behavior.
The study found that sign-trackers are more likely to let cues dominate their decisions, even when those cues begin to signal outcomes that are risky or disadvantageous.
What the Study Looked At
To explore these differences, participants completed a multi-stage experimental task designed to measure how cues influence choices. The experiment included:
- A Pavlovian learning phase, where participants learned that certain visual or auditory cues were linked to positive or negative outcomes.
- An instrumental learning phase, where they learned which actions led to specific results.
- A transfer phase, where researchers tested how much previously learned cues affected actual decision-making.
The team used eye-tracking to see where participants focused their attention, pupil measurements to assess arousal and engagement, and computational modeling to quantify how quickly and accurately participants updated their beliefs about cues.
Reduced Ability to Update Beliefs
One of the most important findings was that individuals who relied heavily on cues had a harder time updating their beliefs when those cues changed meaning.
For example, if a cue that once predicted a positive outcome later began signaling a higher risk or lower reward, sign-trackers were slower to adjust their behavior. Instead of learning from new information, they continued to act as if the cue still held its original value.
This reduced Pavlovian value updating led to persistently disadvantageous decisions that continued even when negative outcomes became clear.
Why This Matters for Mental Health
These findings are especially relevant for understanding conditions such as addiction, compulsive disorders, and anxiety disorders. In these conditions, people often develop strong associations between cues and behaviors—such as the sight of a bar triggering alcohol cravings, or certain sounds increasing anxiety.
The study suggests that individuals with heightened cue sensitivity and limited belief-updating ability may be more vulnerable to falling into harmful decision loops. Even when they consciously understand that a behavior is risky or damaging, the cue-driven learning system continues to push them toward the same choices.
The Brain’s Shortcut System—and Its Limits
From a broader perspective, the research highlights a trade-off built into the brain’s decision-making systems. Cue-based learning is fast and efficient, acting as a mental shortcut that reduces cognitive effort. But when this system becomes too dominant, it can override more flexible, outcome-based reasoning.
In healthy decision-making, people balance cue-driven instincts with the ability to adapt when circumstances change. The study shows that problems arise when this balance is disrupted, making behavior rigid rather than responsive.
Why Some People Are More Sensitive to Cues
Although the study did not focus on genetics or brain imaging, previous research suggests that differences in dopamine signaling, attention systems, and reward processing may play a role in why some individuals become sign-trackers.
Life experiences, stress levels, and repeated exposure to highly salient cues—such as those found in gambling environments or digital platforms—may further strengthen cue sensitivity over time.
Potential Directions for Treatment and Intervention
Understanding these mechanisms opens the door to new approaches in mental health treatment. Rather than focusing only on conscious decision-making, interventions could aim to:
- Reduce the impact of environmental cues
- Strengthen belief-updating and cognitive flexibility
- Help individuals recognize and disengage from cue-driven habits
The researchers plan to continue studying associative learning in clinical populations, including people with diagnosed addictions and anxiety disorders, to see how these mechanisms operate outside the laboratory.
A Clearer Picture of Persistent Bad Choices
The takeaway from this research is not that people who make poor decisions lack intelligence or willpower. Instead, the findings point to fundamental differences in how brains learn from the environment.
Some people are more deeply guided by sights and sounds that once signaled reward or safety, and they may struggle to let go of those associations when reality changes. Over time, this can lock them into patterns of behavior that no longer serve them well.
By identifying these mechanisms, neuroscience is offering a more nuanced and compassionate explanation for why some decision-making problems are so difficult to overcome—and how they might eventually be addressed.
Research Reference:
Reduced Pavlovian Value Updating Alters Decision-Making in Sign-Trackers, Journal of Neuroscience (2025)
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2025/12/11/JNEUROSCI.1465-25.2025
