Wharton researchers explore whether GLP-1 drugs can curb impulsive spending

Michael Platt, a neuroscientist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has a hypothesis that sounds almost too simple to be true: a drug designed to help people lose weight might also make them better with money. The drug in question is a GLP-1 receptor agonist, the class of medications that includes semaglutide and tirzepatide. Platt and his colleagues believe these drugs do more than suppress appetite. They think GLP-1s may reshape how the brain processes reward itself—and if that's true, the implications extend far beyond the scale.

The reasoning is straightforward enough. The brain's reward system is the neural machinery that drives consumption of all kinds: food, yes, but also money, risk, and the immediate gratification that comes from a purchase you probably shouldn't make. If GLP-1s can dampen that reward-seeking drive, Platt suggests, they might help people resist the temptations that derail their finances—luxury purchases, gambling, the compulsive trades that feel good in the moment but hollow out a savings account over time. "It might be very good financially for the average person," Platt told CBS News. "Maybe they're putting more money into savings."

This is not idle speculation. The research is grounded in earlier work by Geoff Cook, the CEO of Noom, a digital health company that is funding the Wharton study. Cook's team has observed what amounts to anecdotal evidence from high-risk professions—stock traders, for instance—that when reward drive dampens, appetite for risk and outsized returns dampens too. The same mechanism that makes someone less likely to order takeout might make them less likely to chase a cryptocurrency windfall or bet the rent on the Powerball.

The numbers suggest the stakes are real. A 2026 Northwestern Mutual study found that 73 percent of Americans either actively participated in or seriously considered highly speculative financial activities like sports betting and cryptocurrency investing, believing these methods would get them to their goals faster than conventional approaches like index funds. That's a lot of people making high-risk bets, many of them driven by the same reward-seeking impulse that keeps a person reaching for snacks.

Starting in mid-October and running through around March 2027, Wharton researchers will recruit approximately 180 participants for what they're calling a first-of-its-kind study. The work will take place at the University of Pennsylvania's MindCORE research lab. Participants will answer questions about their background, mental health, and GLP-1 use, then undergo magnetic resonance imaging while performing four tasks—two involving food, two involving financial decisions. The MRI will track blood flow and oxygen levels in the brain as the reward system activates in response to different stimuli.

The financial portion of the study uses two distinct approaches. In the first, researchers will show participants a series of 14 images depicting products, services, experiences, and spending opportunities—including things like the Powerball jackpot. This passive viewing technique lets scientists observe how the brain responds spontaneously to temptation without asking the person to do anything. The researchers deliberately avoid showing recognizable brand logos, so the brain's response reflects the appeal of the purchase itself, not brand loyalty or familiarity.

The second financial task asks participants to make actual choices while inside the MRI machine. They might be asked whether they'd prefer $20 now or $50 in two months—a classic test of whether someone values immediate gratification or delayed reward. The scan captures which brain regions light up as the person weighs the options and decides. One of the study's central questions is whether GLP-1 use changes how desirable these financial options appear to a particular person—whether the drug shifts the subjective value of waiting versus having.

To ensure honesty, the researchers have built in real consequences. If a participant says they'd rather wait two months for $50, they actually receive the larger sum later. "That ensures that you are being honest and blind with your preferences," Platt said. "You will have to face the consequences of your decision." The stakes are small, but they're real. It's the difference between answering a hypothetical and committing to a choice.

If the research bears out Platt's hypothesis, the implications could be substantial. A simple injection might accomplish in weeks what takes most people years of discipline to achieve: a genuine rewiring of financial behavior. The study won't prove that GLP-1s are a financial cure-all, but it could reveal whether the drugs' effects on the brain's reward system extend beyond appetite suppression into the realm of money and risk. That's a question worth asking, especially in a country where three-quarters of people are chasing financial shortcuts that often leave them worse off.