Frustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory. By Abram Amsel. Pp. 278. (Cambridge University Press, 1992.) £35.00.

Aftereffects of the surprising presentation and omission of appetitive reinforcers on key-pecking performance in pigeons.

“…In all of these experiments, animals tended to respond more vigorously after N than after R. However, Amsel's (1958Amsel's ( , 1992 interpretation that this difference reflects invigoration of ongoing behavior by a drive-inducing state of primary frustration is challenged by a variety of alternative interpretations (see Dudley & Papini, 1995). The main alternative is, of course, that the ROE is not the result of response invigoration after N but of response suppression after R. Seward, Pereboom, Butler, and Jones (1957) suggested that feeding induces transient demotivation that suppresses food-reinforced behavior.…”

“…Accordingly, Ri alternation is interpreted as evidence that N is expected and thus not frustrating. Amsel's (1958Amsel's ( , 1992 invigoration hypothesis of the ROE would be supported by a greater difference in behavior after N versus after R in the partial-R condition (in which N is surprising) than in the discrimination condition (in which N is expected). If this difference in behavior is similar across groups, then the most parsimonious explanation is to assume that the ROE is caused by a postconsummatory factor (e.g., demotivation, postfeeding competing responses, etc.…”

“…The main alternative is, of course, that the ROE is not the result of response invigoration after N but of response suppression after R. Seward, Pereboom, Butler, and Jones (1957) suggested that feeding induces transient demotivation that suppresses food-reinforced behavior. Feeding may also trigger postconsummatory responses that interfere with the target behavior, thus resulting in behavioral suppression after R. Amsel's (1958Amsel's ( , 1992 interpretation is hampered because it is based on a withingroup comparison with unequal conditions of R preceding the critical behavioral measures. Similar unequated conditions of R across experimental and control groups also occur in studies originally purported to have yielded strong evidence of frustrationinduced response invigoration.…”

“…This phenomenon, called successive negative contrast, has consistently failed to appear in research with nonmammalian species, which instead exhibit a gradual adjustment to the new conditions of R or no behavioral change at all (Couvillon & Bitterman, 1985;Papini, 1997;Papini, Muzio, & Segura, 1995;Pert & Bitterman, 1970). One way to understand this instance of contrast is in terms of disruption of approach behavior by anticipatory frustration (Amsel, 1992). Thus, if the failure of nonmammalian vertebrates to exhibit contrast reflects a true deficit in their ability to anticipate the affective reaction to surprising nonreward, then the aftereffects of surprising nonreward may be qualitatively different from those observed in mammalian species.…”

Incentive contrast in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris).

“…Surprising incentive omissions, that is, the absence or reduction of an appetitive reinforcer in the presence of signals previously paired with a larger incentive, have aversive effects and elicit emotional responses (Amsel, 1992;Papini & Dudley, 1997). In a classic example (Tinklepaugh, 1928), a monkey saw the experimenter deposit a reward under one of two cups.…”