Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb;21(1):66-73.
doi: 10.1037/a0030843. Epub 2012 Dec 17.

Smoking and the bandit: a preliminary study of smoker and nonsmoker differences in exploratory behavior measured with a multiarmed bandit task

Affiliations

Smoking and the bandit: a preliminary study of smoker and nonsmoker differences in exploratory behavior measured with a multiarmed bandit task

Merideth A Addicott et al. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

Advantageous decision-making is an adaptive trade-off between exploring alternatives and exploiting the most rewarding option. This trade-off may be related to maladaptive decision-making associated with nicotine dependence; however, explore/exploit behavior has not been previously investigated in the context of addiction. The explore/exploit trade-off is captured by the multiarmed bandit task, in which different arms of a slot machine are chosen to discover the relative payoffs. The goal of this study was to preliminarily investigate whether smokers differ from nonsmokers in their degree of exploratory behavior. Smokers (n = 18) and nonsmokers (n = 17) completed a 6-armed bandit task as well as self-report measures of behavior and personality traits. Smokers were found to exhibit less exploratory behavior (i.e., made fewer switches between slot machine arms) than nonsmokers within the first 300 trials of the bandit task. The overall proportion of exploratory choices negatively correlated with self-reported measures of delay aversion and nonplanning impulsivity. These preliminary results suggest that smokers make fewer initial exploratory choices on the bandit task. The bandit task is a promising measure that could provide valuable insights into how nicotine use and dependence is associated with explore/exploit decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors Addicott, Pearson, Wilson, Platt, and McClernon have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Point values for the first 100 trials of the bandit task. Participants selected one of six slot machine arms to play per trial. The number of points paid off by each slot machine gradually changed from trial to trial, independently of other machines. The pattern of point values was determined according to a biased random walk (Equation 1). Each line represents the point values for a single slot machine. Dots represent the selections made by a representative subject.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The proportion of exploratory choices made on the bandit task by non-smokers and smokers. Shown are the estimated marginal means of the average percentage of exploratory choices per block of 300 trials (controlling for education). Smokers made significantly fewer exploratory choices in the first block compared to non-smokers (*p < 0.05). Error bars are S.E.M.

References

    1. Anderson BDO, Moore JB. Optimal Filtering. Englewood Cliffs; 1979.
    1. Bechara A, Dolan S, Denburg N, Hindes A, Anderson SW, Nathan PE. Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39:376–389. - PubMed
    1. Berry DA, Fristedt B. Bandit problems: sequential allocation of experiments. New York: Chapman and Hall, London; 1985.
    1. Bickel WK, Odum AL, Madden GJ. Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:447–454. 91460447.213 [pii] - PubMed
    1. Biele G, Erev I, Ert E. Learning, risk attitude and hot stoves in restless bandit problems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2009;53:155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2008.05.006. - DOI