A direct and conceptual replication of post-loss speeding when gambling

Abstract

<p>To investigate the response to sub-optimal outcomes, Verbruggen et al. (2017) conducted a study in which participants chose between a gamble and a non-gamble option. The non-gamble option was a guaranteed amount of points, whereas the gamble option was associated with a higher amount but a lower probability of winning. The authors observed that participants initiated the next trial faster after a loss compared to wins or non-gambles. In the present study, we directly replicated these findings in the lab and online. We also designed another task controlling for the number of trials per outcome. In this task, participants guessed where a reward was hidden. They won points if they selected the correct location, but lost points if they selected the incorrect location. We included neutral trials as a baseline. Again, participants sped up after a loss relative to wins and neutral trials (but only with a response choice in neutral trials and a large sample size). These findings appear inconsistent with cognitive-control frameworks, which assume that sub-optimal outcomes typically lead to slower responses; instead, they suggest that sub-optimal outcomes can invigorate behaviour consistent with accounts of frustrative non-reward and impulsive action.</p>

Proximity and Expectancy Modulate Response Vigor After Reward Omission

“…For the remaining episodes, we only included the ones where all eight RTs were below 5 seconds in the data analysis. This exclusion criterion was predetermined and consistent with previous studies (Eben et al, 2020;Verbruggen et al, 2017). By using this exclusion criterion, we excluded episodes in which participants might have taken a short break (hence resulting in RTs potentially longer than 5 seconds).…”

“…For instance, when human participants were blocked from obtaining a monetary reward, they pressed a button with more force to confirm the outcome (Yu et al, 2014). Similarly, in a gambling context, participants initiated the next trial more quickly after a loss (i.e., reward omission) than after a win and a non-gamble baseline (Eben et al, 2020;Verbruggen et al, 2017; see also Corr & Thompson, 2014; M. J. Dixon et al, 2013;Stange et al, 2016).…”