Search

It has long been suspected in the vertebrate literature, but demonstrated only recently in work with honeybees (Apis mellifera), that the different treatments of nontarget stimuli in conventional between-groups blocking experiments may give the appearance of blocking independently of experience with the target stimulus. The same difficulty does not arise in within-subjects experiments, and in a series of such experiments with odors and colors free-flying honeybees gave no evidence of blocking; separate reinforced presentations of one element of a reinforced compound failed to reduce responding to the second. There was, however, clear evidence of facilitation; separate nonreinforced presentations of one element of a reinforced compound increased responding to the second. The implications of the results for further work on compound conditioning in honeybees and other animals are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prompted by doubts about the adequacy of the various control procedures long used in research on blocking, we repeated some earlier experiments with honeybees that had given the appearance of forward, concurrent, and backward blocking. The new experiments differed from the earlier experiments only in that the target stimulus was omitted during the training and was encountered for the first time in the test. In the new experiments, just as in the earlier experiments, the blocking groups responded less to the target stimulus than did the control groups. The results show that the effects of the different treatments of nontarget stimuli commonly compared in blocking experiments may generalize to the target stimulus and thus affect responding to that stimulus independently of experience with it. Implications for research on blocking in honeybees and other animals are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]