Proximity and Expectancy Modulate Response Vigor After Reward Omission

Abstract

Both humans and some non-human animals tend to respond more vigorously after failing to obtain rewards. Such response invigoration becomes more pronounced when individuals have increased expectations of obtaining rewards during reward pursuit (expectancy), and when they perceive the eventual loss to be proximal to reward receipt (proximity). However, it was unclear whether proximity and expectancy may have distinct influences on response vigor. To investigate this question, we developed a computerized ’scratch card’ task, in which participants turned three cards one by one and won points when all three cards matched (AAA). After each game, they pressed keys to confirm the outcome and start a new game. We included three types of losses: AAB, where participants had increased expectancy of winning as the game evolved, and the final outcome was proximal to winning; ABB and ABA, with reduced expectancy, but high proximity to winning; and ABC, with reduced expectancy and low proximity to winning. In three online studies, we consistently observed that participants confirmed losses more quickly than wins. Importantly, detailed analyses of the different types of losses revealed that proximity reduced vigor, whereas expectancy increased it. Together, these findings are in line with general appraisal theories: the adjustments of response vigor may be triggered by the appraised discrepancy between the current state and a reference state (e.g., attaining one’s goal), and serve to close the gap and facilitate goal pursuit. These findings may also have implications for the effect of ‘near miss’ on gambling persistence. Further exploring how reward omission impacts response vigor may help us better understand the goal pursuit process, and how it becomes maladaptive under certain circumstances.

Modeling urgency in the lab: Exploring the associations between self-reported urgency and behavioral responses to negative outcomes in laboratory gambling

“…These findings are not in line with those of Gipson et al (2012), who showed that reward omission led to invigorated behavior, which, in turn, was related to negative urgency in their study.Of note, Gipson and colleagues (2012) used an operant conditioning paradigm in which reward omission was unexpected. Thus, expectations might have modulated the effect of reward omission in this case (see also Chen et al, 2020). Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with other research showing no associations or only weak associations between behavioral tasks and self-reported impulsivity facets (Creswell et al, 2019;Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011Reynolds et al, 2006;Schluter et al, 2018;Sharma et al, 2014).…”

“…Subjective ratings in this study revealed that losses were rated as negative emotional events. This post-loss speeding effect has now been replicated many times (Chen et al, 2020;Eben et al, 2022;Eben et al, 2020). Interestingly, speeding can also be observed in real-life online gambling.…”

Am I winning or losing? Probing the appraisal of partial wins via response vigor

“…This prediction has been largely corroborated in gambling situations. In real and simulated gambling, as well as in gambling analogue tasks, people tend to initiate a new round more quickly after a loss than after a win (e.g., Chen et al, 2022;Chen et al, 2020;Detez et al, 2019;Ferrari et al, 2022;Stange et al, 2017;Stange et al, 2016) and after a non-gamble outcome (Eben et al, 2020;Verbruggen et al, 2017).…”

“…A loss that is proximal to a win may indicate a subjectively better current state, and the discrepancy between the current and the desired state might therefore be smaller. Thus, objectively the same outcomes (i.e., losing the same amount of points) were appraised differently, depending on the cues that accompanied the losses (Chen et al, 2020). Some gambling products also include other types of ambiguous outcomes, that may allow for different appraisals.…”

Winning and losing in online gambling: Effects on within-session chasing

“…Here we argue that the speed of play might also be a crucial aspect of chasing. Previous work has shown that in simulated gambling or gambling-like tasks in the laboratory, participants initiated a new game more quickly after a loss than after a win [21][22][23][24] and a non-gamble trial [25,26]. The faster initiation of a new gamble after a loss (the so-called post-loss speeding effect [25]) may reflect a stronger urge to continue playing after losing, and can therefore be seen as an expression of loss-chasing [13].…”