The relationship between regular substance use and cost comparisons in stable and volatile learning contexts

TL;DR

The paper explores how regular substance users make cost-related decisions differently in various contexts, suggesting they may inconsistently use cost information.

Contribution

The study introduces a new loss-frame probabilistic learning task to examine cost evaluation in substance users.

Findings

Individuals with more years of regular substance use were less likely to repeat choices after avoiding losses.

Computational models showed these individuals inconsistently used expected values to guide decisions.

The findings suggest inconsistency in cost evaluation, not insensitivity, may drive continued substance use.

Abstract

Insensitivity to costs during cost-benefit decision-making consistently has been related to substance use severity. However, little work has manipulated cost information to examine how people evaluate and compare multiple costs. Further, no work has examined how the consideration of cost information varies across different contexts. We administered a new loss-frame variant of a probabilistic learning task in a diverse community sample enriched for substance use (N = 137). Individuals with more years of regular substance use tended not to repeat choices after they avoided losses, choosing similarly regardless of whether they had avoided or incurred a loss. Computational modeling parameters indicated that they were more inconsistent in their use of expected values to guide choice. These results contribute to our conceptualization of substance use severity by suggesting that inconsistency in using cost information, rather than insensitivity to costs, may inform choices to continue using substances despite incurring negative consequences.

Figures