Environmental control of social goals: using Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer to test cue-based pro-self and pro-social outcome responses

Kaiyang Qin

Hans Marien

Ruud Custers

and

Henk Aarts

Published:25 January 2023https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220660

Abstract

A large amount of literature demonstrates that social behaviour can be triggered by environmental cues.

A long-standing debate involves the question of whether such stimuli trigger behaviour directly (i.e. habits) or whether these effects mediate goals. As studies on automatic goal pursuit typically use real-world cues that are already associated with the behaviour and potentially the goal, it is impossible to make strong claims about the nature of the effects. In the present paper, we use a paradigm inspired by the Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) literature to examine how the environment can trigger goal-directed behaviour.

Building on the essence of pro-self and pro-social motives in humans, two experiments explored the PIT effect when the outcomes were framed in terms of self- versus other-interest. Participants performed actions to earn money for themselves or a charity. Each outcome was linked to a different cue. The results showed that a cue predictive of self-interest outcomes facilitated responses instrumental in gaining the outcome, while such specific PIT effect for other-interest outcomes only emerged when participants were free to donate the money. We briefly discuss these findings reflecting on whether the PIT effect in our paradigm is indeed sensitive to the value of social goals.

2022: SCIENCE

Biden doesn’t get it

H. HOLDEN THORP

SCIENCE • 18 Feb 2022 • First Release • DOI: 10.1126/science.abo6922

... After 4 years of bludgeoning by the Trump administration, hope resurged a year ago as a new White House promised to value science. But there have been missteps, the most recent taking place on the heels of another blunder that many saw coming.

Eric Lander, who just stepped down as President Biden’s science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), was a prominent research figure with a well-known record of bullying and callous actions. With the notable exception of the 500 Women Scientists organization, the scientific community was embarrassingly silent about Lander’s nomination.

Not surprisingly, he is out of the White House because of the same behavioral issues. And yet, in another tone deaf move, the administration just named Francis Collins, the recently retired director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as Lander’s interim replacement as science adviser while asking Alondra Nelson, the OSTP’s deputy director for science and society and an experienced administrator and scholar, to temporarily direct OSTP. Apparently, Biden doesn’t think Nelson is capable of doing both jobs. I disagree and am not staying silent this time.

2016: Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren

hails the dawn of state-of-the-art social engineering in the service of the state:

"As President Obama noted in his Executive Order 13707, behavioral science insights can support a wide range of national priorities including ... accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy.

That Executive Order, 13707, directs Federal agencies to apply behavioral science insights to their policies and programs, and it institutionalizes the Social and Behavioral Science Team...The adminstration is releasing new guidance to agencies that supports continued implementation of
The Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order.

That guidance will help agencies identify promising opportunities to apply behavioral science insights to their programs and policies."