Consequences of Surprising Reward Omissions

Abstract

A surprising reward omission (SRO) occurs when an appetitive reinforcer is not presented (or it is reduced in magnitude or quality) even though there are signals for its impending presentation. Evidence supporting the hypothesis that SROs produce an aversive emotional reaction with physiological and behavioral consequences is reviewed. SROs are followed by pituitary–adrenal activation; changes in immune function; odor emissions in rodents; distress vocalizations in rodents and primates; and increases in locomotion, aggressive behavior, drinking, and eating. SROs can support the acquisition of new escape responses and invigorate previously acquired responses. The review identifies common aspects of these phenomena and areas in which more research is needed.

Can surprising nonreward and adjunctive behavior influence each other?

“…In this case, that common element is the internal response of frustration induced by surprising nonreward and the corresponding reinforcement failure. It is possible that the weak, at best, effects observed in the present experiments simply reflect that frustration is not a prominent feature in the adjustment to intermittent reinforcement schedules, unlike it was suggested by Papini and Dudley (1997). This would leave us to account for Thomka and Rosellini's (1975) results.…”

“…Predictions derived from Amsel's (1992) theory suggested that surprising nonreward resulting from both PR and intermittent reinforcement would lead to the counterconditioning of running performance, whether in the runway or the conditioning chamber (Papini & Dudley, 1997). Such counterconditioning was expected to increase running behavior leading to higher wheel running in Experiment 1, Phase 2, and increase persistence in extinction in Experiment 2, Phase 2.…”

“…Thus, frustration induced by surprising nonreward derived from intermittent reinforcement would provide an internal source of reinforcement for any activity supported by the environment that reduces frustration (e.g., drinking if there is water available, wheel running if there is an accessible wheel, etc.). Papini and Dudley (1997) based their view in three findings about schedule-induced drinking. First, drinking is facilitated by large, or more preferred, reinforcers (Rosellini & Burdette, 1980;Rosellini & Lashley, 1982; but see Reid & Dale, 1983), when periods of omission would be particularly frustrating.…”

“…In these sessions, excessive behaviors tend to occur during the early portions of the inter-reinforcement interval (IRI), when the probability of reinforcement is low (Lashley & Rosellini, 1980). Surprising nonreward refers to the omission, reduction in magnitude, or quality degradation of an appetitive reinforcer that occurs in the presence of signals previously paired with a reward of greater incentive value than the current one (Papini & Dudley, 1997). According to Papini and Dudley (1997), nonreward is surprising provided that it occurs in an excitatory context, a hypothesis consistent with the low levels of adjunctive behavior when long IRIs are used (Falk, 1966a).…”

“…Surprising nonreward refers to the omission, reduction in magnitude, or quality degradation of an appetitive reinforcer that occurs in the presence of signals previously paired with a reward of greater incentive value than the current one (Papini & Dudley, 1997). According to Papini and Dudley (1997), nonreward is surprising provided that it occurs in an excitatory context, a hypothesis consistent with the low levels of adjunctive behavior when long IRIs are used (Falk, 1966a). Surprising nonreward would then induce an internal aversive emotional state of frustration, which provides a source of motivation invigorating adjunctive behavior.…”