Three experiments with foraging honeybees were designed to study the effect of experience with A on responding to B after AB+ training. In the first experiment, responding to B was the same whether the AB+ training was preceded or followed by A+ training. In the second experiment, responding to B after AB+ training was less in animals that also had A+ training than in control animals that were equally often reinforced in the absence of A; whether the A+ training preceded, was concurrent with, or followed the AB+ training made no difference. In the third experiment, responding to B after AB+ training was less when the AB+ training was followed by A+C– training than when it was followed by C+/A– training. These results, like those of some recent vertebrate experiments, take us beyond the traditional explanation of blocking in terms of impaired conditioning of B on AB+ trials and support the suggestion that the mechanism, still poorly understood, may nevertheless be a relatively simple one.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BittermanM. E. (1984). Migration and learning in fishes. In. McCleaveJ. D., McNeillW. H., DodsonJ. J., & ArnoldG. P. (Eds.), Mechanisms of migration in fishes (pp. 397–420). New York: Plenum.
2.
BittermanM. E. (1988). Vertebrate-invertebrate comparisons. In H. J. & JerisonI. L. (Eds.), Intelligence and evolutionary biology (pp. 251–276). Berlin: Springer.
3.
BittermanM.E. (1996). Comparative analysis of learning in honeybees. Animal Learning & Behavior, 24, 123–141.
4.
BlaisdellA. P.GuntherL. M., & MillerR. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 63–76.
5.
CouvillonP. A.ArakakiL., & BittermanM. E. (1997). Intramodal blocking in honeybees. Animal Learning & Behavior, 25, 277–282.
6.
CouvillonP. A., & BittermanM. E. (1982). Compound conditioning in honeybees. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 96, 192–199.
7.
CouvillonP. A.CamposA. C.BassT. D., & BittermanM. E. (2001). Intermodal blocking in honeybees. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 369–381.
8.
CouvillonP. A.KlosterhalfenS., & BittermanM. E. (1983). Analysis of overshadowing in honeybees. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 97, 154–166.
9.
DickinsonA., & BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective evaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80.
10.
FudimO. K. (1978). Preconditioning of flavors with a formalin-produced sodium need. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 276–285.
11.
HullC. L. (1929). A functional interpretation of the conditioned reflex. Psychological Review, 36, 498–511.
12.
KaminL. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In CampbellB. A.ChurchR.M. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13.
KruschkeJ. K., & BlairN. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.
14.
MatzelL. D.SchachtmanT. R., & MillerR. R. (1985). Recovery of an overshadowed association by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus. Learning and Motivation, 16, 398–412.
15.
MillerR. R.BarnetR. C., & GrahameN. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 363–386.
16.
MillerR. R., & MatuteH. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 370–386.
17.
PearceJ.M. (2002). Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 73–95.
18.
PfautzP. L.DoneganN. H., & WagnerA. R. (1978). Sensory preconditioning versus protection from habituation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 286–295.
19.
RescorlaR. A., & CunninghamC. L. (1978). Within-compound flavor associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 267–275.
20.
RescorlaR. A., & DurlachP. D. (1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning. In SpearN. E. & MillerR. R. (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 81–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of classical conditioning: Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Conditioning 11: Current research and theory, (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
22.
ShanksD. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1–21.
23.
SpenceK. W. (1936). The nature of discrimination learning in animals. Psychological Review, 43, 427–449.
24.
SutherlandN. S., & MackintoshN. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York: Academic Press.
25.
Van HammeL.J., & WassermanE.A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound cue elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127–151.
26.
WagnerA. R. (1969). Stimulus validity and stimulus selection in associative learning. In MackintoshN. J. & HonigW. K. (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 90–122). Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie University Press.
