The reward value of near-miss situations

Svartdal, F. (2011). The reward value of near‐miss situations. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology52, 209–217. What is a “positive” outcome? Clearly, obtaining something attractive is regarded as positive, but so is avoiding something negative. The present paper compared these two types of situations in scenario‐type evaluations. Participants rated positive (P), avoiding negative (AN), and negative (N) outcomes in terms of luck (Experiment 1) and overall positive/negative evaluations (Experiments 2 and 3). The results demonstrated that evaluations of P and AN outcomes were judged as equally positive, but the emotional basis for these evaluations was very different: The feeling of relief was the dominating emotion in AN situations, whereas joy was the dominating emotion in P situations. Overall, these results indicate that avoidance‐induced reward value may be important as a motivating factor in cognition and action.     

The use of daily diaries to assess the relations among mood state,overt behavior,and reward value of activities

Recent data has sparked renewed interest in behavioral treatments for depression; however several fundamental questions remain regarding the mechanisms of such approaches. To this end, the current study directly tested the assumption that non-clinical mildly depressed individuals receive less response-contingent positive reinforcement than non-depressed individuals, indicated by less engagement in behaviors perceived as rewarding in terms of both immediate pleasure and potential for these behaviors to result in more distal rewards. The data presented support this assumption and provide support for the role of reinforcement-based strategies such as behavioral activation in the treatment of depression.     

Multiple influences of reward on perception and attention

Visual processing is influenced by stimulus-driven and goal-driven factors. Recent interest has centred on understanding how reward might provide additional contributions to visual perception and unravelling the underlying neural mechanisms. In this review, I suggest that the impact of reward on vision is not unitary and depends on the type of experimental manipulation. With this in mind, I outline a possible classification of the main paradigms employed in the literature and discuss potential brain processes that operate during some of the experimental manipulations described.     

Attentional training of the appetitive motivation system: Effects on sensation seeking preferences and reward-based behavior

Motivation is seen to guide selective attention in favor of motivation-consistent stimuli. However, such links may be bi-directional in nature, such that selective attention processes may also bias and determine one’s motivational state. In the present study, we examined the latter direction of influence by randomly assigning participants to one of two conditions designed to train selective attention either toward or away from rewarding word stimuli. The effects of this manipulation were examined in terms of approach-related intentions, emotional state, and reward-reactive behavior. It was found that the selective attention manipulation influenced preferences and behavior, but not conscious emotional state. Findings are discussed in relation to implications for motivation, cognition, and emotion.

Counteracting effect of threat on reward enhancements during working memory

Cognitive performance has been shown to be enhanced when performance-based rewards are at stake. On the other hand, task-irrelevant threat processing has been shown to have detrimental effects during several cognitive tasks. Crucially, the impact of reward and threat on cognition has been studied largely independently of one another. Hence, our understanding of how reward and threat simultaneously contribute to performance is incomplete. To fill in this gap, the present study investigated how reward and threat interact with one another during a cognitive task. We found that threat of shock counteracted the beneficial effect of reward during a working memory task. Furthermore, individual differences in self-reported reward-sensitivity and anxiety were linked to the extent to which reward and threat interacted during behaviour. Together, the current findings contribute to a limited but growing literature unravelling how positive and negative information processing jointly influence cognition.     

Changing commuters’ behavior using rewards: A study of rush-hour avoidance

In a 13-week field study conducted in The Netherlands, participants were provided with daily rewards – monetary and in-kind, in order to encourage them to avoid driving during the morning rush-hour. Participants could earn a reward (money or credits to keep a Smartphone handset), by driving to work earlier or later, by switching to another mode or by teleworking. The collected data, complemented with pre and post measurement surveys, were analyzed using longitudinal techniques and mixed logistic regression. The results assert that the reward is the main extrinsic motivation for discouraging rush-hour driving. The monetary reward exhibits diminishing sensitivity, whereas the Smartphone has endowment qualities. Although the reward influences the motivation to avoid the rush-hour, the choice how to change behavior is influenced by additional factors including education, scheduling, habitual behavior, attitudes, and travel information availability.     

The modulation of reward priority by top-down knowledge

Reward-associated features capture attention automatically and continue to do so even when the reward contingencies are removed. This profile has led to the hypothesis that rewards belong to a separate class of attentional biases that is neither typically top-down nor bottom-up. The goal of these experiments was to understand the degree to which top-down knowledge can modulate value-driven attentional capture within (a) the timecourse of a single trial and (b) when the reward contingencies change explicitly over trials. The results suggested that top-down knowledge does not affect the size of value-driven attentional capture within a single trial. There were clear top-down modulations in the magnitude of value-driven capture when reward contingencies explicitly changed, but the original reward associations continued to have a persistent bias on attention. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that reward associations bias attention through mechanisms separate from other top-down and bottom-up attentional biases.     

Effect of failure/success feedback and the moderating influence of personality on reward motivation

While motivation to pursue goals is often assumed to be a trait-like characteristic, it is influenced by a variety of situational factors. In particular, recent experiences of success or failure, as well as cognitive responses to these outcomes, may shape subsequent willingness to expend effort for future rewards. To date, however, these effects have not been explicitly tested. In the present study, 131 healthy individuals received either failure or success feedback on a cognitive task. They were then instructed to either ruminate or distract themselves from their emotions. Finally, they completed the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task, a laboratory measure of reward motivation. Results indicate that participants who received failure feedback relied more strongly on the reward magnitude when choosing whether to exert greater effort to obtain larger rewards, though this effect only held under conditions of significant uncertainty about whether the effort would be rewarded. Further, participants with high levels of trait inhibition were less responsive to reward value and probability when choosing whether to expend greater effort, results that echo past studies of effort-based decision-making in psychological disorders.     

The modulatory impact of reward and attention on global feature selection in human visual cortex

Reward powerfully influences human behaviour and perception, with reward effects being observed already on the level of basic sensory processing. Although reward-related modulations generally resemble those related to attentional selection, it is debated whether these effects indeed reflect the same selection operations. Here we focus on neuromagnetic indices of global colour-based attention in visual cortex, and ask whether reward elicits the same or separable underlying modulation effects. Observers performed a colour/orientation selection task where colour served to define the target as well as reward prospect. On each trial a target containing the target colour and one other colour was presented in the left visual field (VF) together with a bicoloured distractor in the right VF. Reward was delivered on correctly performed trials when the reward colour appeared in the target but not when it appeared in the distractor. The effect of global colour selection was assessed by comparing the brain response to the distractor depending on whether it contained the target colour, the reward colour, both, or neither. We observed that both the reward and target colour led to similar increases of the neuromagnetic response between ~200–260 ms originating from the same ventral extrastriate visual cortex areas, albeit slightly temporally lagged. Importantly, the response to the target and reward colour alone always added up to match the response size of their combined presentation. These results suggest that while reward and attention recruit the same global feature selection effects in extrastriate visual cortex, they are likely controlled by independent top-down influences.     

On being imitated: Effects on reward and reward value of the imitator

The effects of being imitated on the model's reward of imitating and nonimitating confederates and on the confederates' reward value were assessed. Forty-eight first graders served as subjects. It was found that more children showed a bias in giving reward to the imitating confederate than to the nonimitating confederate. This effect was particularly strong for children classified as having an internal locus of control. Second, no difference in confederates' reward value was obtained as measured by operantly conditioned responding on a marble-drop task.     

Motivated semantic control: Exploring the effects of extrinsic reward and self-reference on semantic retrieval in semantic aphasia

Recent insights show that increased motivation can benefit executive control, but this effect has not been explored in relation to semantic cognition. Patients with deficits of controlled semantic retrieval in the context of semantic aphasia (SA) after stroke may benefit from this approach since ‘semantic control’ is considered an executive process. Deficits in this domain are partially distinct from the domain-general deficits of cognitive control. We assessed the effect of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in healthy controls and SA patients. Experiment 1 manipulated extrinsic reward using high or low levels of points for correct responses during a semantic association task. Experiment 2 manipulated the intrinsic value of items using self-reference, allocating pictures of items to the participant (‘self’) or researcher (‘other’) in a shopping game before participants retrieved their semantic associations. These experiments revealed that patients, but not controls, showed better performance when given an extrinsic reward, consistent with the view that increased external motivation may help ameliorate patients’ semantic control deficits. However, while self-reference was associated with better episodic memory, there was no effect on semantic retrieval. We conclude that semantic control deficits can be reduced when extrinsic rewards are anticipated; this enhanced motivational state is expected to support proactive control, for example, through the maintenance of task representations. It may be possible to harness this modulatory impact of reward to combat the control demands of semantic tasks in SA patients.     

Adaptive scaling of reward in episodic memory: a replication study

Reward is thought to enhance episodic memory formation via dopaminergic consolidation. Bunzeck, Dayan, Dolan, and Duzel [(2010). A common mechanism for adaptive scaling of reward and novelty. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1380–1394] provided functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioural evidence that reward and episodic memory systems are sensitive to the contextual value of a reward—whether it is relatively higher or lower—as opposed to absolute value or prediction error. We carried out a direct replication of their behavioural study and did not replicate their finding that memory performance associated with reward follows this pattern of adaptive scaling. An effect of reward outcome was in the opposite direction to that in the original study, with lower reward outcomes leading to better memory than higher outcomes. There was a marginal effect of reward context, suggesting that expected value affected memory performance. We discuss the robustness of the reward memory relationship to variations in reward context, and whether other reward-related factors have a more reliable influence on episodic memory.     

Cutthroat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures

Structural Adaptation Theory proposes that it is more difficult for teams to change from competitive to cooperative reward conditions than it is for them to change in the opposite direction, and this has been labeled the cutthroat cooperation effect [Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Jundt, D. K. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation of team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103–120]. The current study investigated whether team role discussion can neutralize this effect and promote successful adaptation from competitive to cooperative reward structures. Consistent with our predictions, in a study that involved 75 four-person teams performing a complex task under cooperative reward conditions, we found that teams with a history of competitive rewards performed worse than teams with a history of cooperative rewards in a control condition. However, this effect was neutralized when teams allocated their roles in a team role discussion. This neutralization effect was driven by behavioral coordination and unmet expectations regarding conflict.     

The dynamics of consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective

Like most behavior, consumer behavior too is goal driven. In turn, goals constitute cognitive constructs that can be chronically active as well as primed by features of the environment. Goal systems theory outlines the principles that characterize the dynamics of goal pursuit and explores their implications for consumer behavior. In this vein, we discuss from a common, goal systemic, perspective a variety of well known phenomena in the realm of consumer behavior including brand loyalty, variety seeking, impulsive buying, preferences, choices and regret. The goal systemic perspective affords guidelines for subsequent research on the dynamic aspects of consummatory behavior as well as offering insights into practical matters in the area of marketing.     

Sensitivity to reward and punishment in major depressive disorder: Effects of rumination and of single versus multiple experiences

In the current study, we examined the postulation that rumination makes it difficult for depressed individuals to learn the exact probability that different stimuli will be associated with punishment. To do so, we induced rumination or distraction in depressed and never-depressed participants and then measured punishment and reward sensitivity with a probabilistic selection task. In this task, participants first learn the probability that different stimuli will be associated with reward and punishment. During a subsequent test phase in which novel combinations of stimuli are presented, participants’ sensitivity to reward is tested by measuring their tendency to select the stimuli that were most highly rewarded during training, and their sensitivity to punishment is tested by measuring their tendency to not select the stimuli that were most highly punished during training. Compared with distraction, rumination led depressed participants to be less sensitive to the probability that stimuli will be associated with punishment and relatively less sensitive to punishment than reward. Never-depressed participants and depressed participants who were distracted from rumination were as sensitive to reward as they were to punishment. The effects of rumination on sensitivity to punishment may be a mechanism by which rumination can lead to maladaptive consequences.     

The role of the GABA(A) agonist muscimol on memory performance: reward contingencies determine the nature of the deficit

A matching-to-position (MTP) paradigm was altered to influence the type of associations a rat would use to solve the task. Our main behavioral manipulation was the application of the differential outcomes procedure (DOP). The DOP involves correlating each to-be-remembered event with a distinct reward condition. This procedure results in the development of unique reward expectancies that enhance and guide choice behavior. Such distinct reward expectancies are not formed when either a common or random assignment of reward is used (a non-differential outcomes procedure [NOP]). Intracerebroventricular infusions of the amnestic agent muscimol (GABA(A) agonist) or aCSF were delivered to male rats trained on a delayed MTP task that implemented either the DOP or the NOP. Muscimol impaired performance in a dose dependent fashion in both groups--but the nature of the deficit differed as a function of reinforcement contingencies. Rats trained with the DOP displayed a non-mnemonic delay-independent impairment: performance at all delay intervals was disrupted. In contrast, NOP-trained rats displayed a delay-dependent impairment demonstrating that muscimol can also have memory-disrupting effects. The difference in pattern of impairment appears to be a function of the associations formed during training and the type of cognitive strategies involved in maintaining behavior on a conditional delayed discrimination task when reinforcement contingencies are varied. Thus, these results demonstrate that increasing GABA(A) receptor activation impairs a range of associative and memory functions.     

Positive expectancies and perceived impaired control mediate the influence of reward drive and rash impulsiveness on alcohol use

Recent factor analytic studies indicate that the broad trait of impulsivity comprises at least two distinct dimensions with regard to substance use. Thus, a two-factor model of impulsivity, comprising reward drive (i.e., sensitivity to rewarding stimuli) and rash impulsiveness (i.e., rash behaviour devoid of forethought), has been proposed. It is argued that distinct cognitive processes may mediate the association of these impulsivity factors with alcohol use. Specifically, it was hypothesised that drinking expectancies would mediate the association between reward drive and alcohol use, and that perceived impaired control would mediate the effect of rash impulsiveness on alcohol. Utilising established scales, 132 participants aged 18 to 70 years were surveyed in order to assess the capacity of the two-factor model to differentially predict alcohol use through distinct cognitive mediators. The hypotheses were supported, providing support for a two-factor approach. Thus, reward drive and rash impulsiveness appear to influence alcohol use through distinct cognitive processes.     

Impulsivity and reward sensitivity within the pen model: A test of discriminant hypotheses

Impulsivity and reward sensitivity are often treated as interchangeable constructs. This conflation may be traced back to Gray’s interpretation of impulsivity as the trait level manifestation of the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), that mediates sensitivity to rewards. In this study (N = 696) we evaluated discriminant hypotheses regarding the relationships between BAS-mediated reward sensitivity, impulsivity and Eysenck’s PEN superfactors. We hypothesized that reward sensitivity would be mainly linked with Extraversion, and that impulsivity would be primarily connected with Psychoticism. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling and equality constraints tests. Results mostly supported our expectations: reward sensitivity was more strongly related to Extraversion than to the other PEN superfactors, while impulsivity was more strongly related to Psychoticism and Neuroticism. Implications for BAS and impulsivity research are discussed.