Abstract
Signaled avoidance was studied in individual honeybees that visited the laboratory regularly to take sucrose solution from a target set on the sill of an open window. During feeding, substrate vibration or airstream was used to signal a brief shock that could be avoided by breaking off contact with the food for a few seconds. Aversive conditioning of the context was measured in terms of return time (the time between successive visits). In Experiment 1, experience with unsignaled shock was found to lengthen return time—which experience with signaled shock did not—and to impair performance in subsequent avoidance training with signaled shock (the US-preexposure effect). In Experiment 2, experience with unsignaled shock given after signaled avoidance training lengthened return time but had no effect on response to the signal in a subsequent extinction test. These results closely resemble the results obtained in analogous experiments with vertebrates.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abramson, C. I. (1986). Aversive conditioning in honeybees (Apis mellifera).Journal of Comparative Psychology,100, 108–116.
Abramson, C. I., &Bitterman, M. E. (1986). Latent inhibition in honeybees.Animal Learning & Behavior,14, 184–189.
Ayres, J. J. B., Bombace, J. C., Shurtleff, D., &Vigorito, M. (1985). Conditioned suppression tests of the context-blocking hypothesis: Testing in the absence of the preconditioned context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,11, 1–14.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Gabel, J., &Baker, P. A. (1981). Contextual conditioning and the US preexposure effect in conditioned fear.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes,7, 109–128.
Balsam, P. D. (1985). The functions of context in learning and performance. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds),Context and learning (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Balsam, P. D., &Schwartz, A. L. (1981). Rapid contextual conditioning in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 382–393.
Bitterman, M. E. (1975). The comparative analysis of learning.Science,188, 699–709.
Bitterman, M. E., Menzel, R., Fietz, A., &Schafer, S. (1983). Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera).Journal of Comparative Psychology,97, 107–119.
Bouton, M. E., &King, D. A. (1986) Effect of context on performance to conditioned stimuli with mixed histories of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 4–15.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1982). Compound conditioning in honeybees.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,96, 192–199.
Couvillon, P. A., Klosterhalfen, S., &Bitterman, M. E. (1983). Analysis of overshadowing in honeybees.Journal of Comparative Psychology,97, 154–166.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. (1981). Spreading association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Grau, J. W., &Rescorla, R. A. (1984). Role of context in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 324–332.
Hinson, R. E. (1982). Effects of UCS preexposure on excitatory and inhibitory rabbit eyelid conditioning: An associative effect of conditioned contextual stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 49–61.
Kremer, E. F. (1972). Properties of a preexposed stimulus.Psychonomic Science,27, 45–47.
Lubow, R. E. (1973). Latent inhibition.Psychological Bulletin,79, 398–407.
Randich, A. (1981). The US preexposure phenomenon in the conditioned suppression paradigm: A role for conditioned situational stimuli.Learning & Motivation,12, 321–341.
Randich, A., &LoLordo, V. M. (1979). Associative and nonassociative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Bulletin,86, 523–548.
Randich, A., &Ross, R. T. (1984). Mechanisms of blocking by contextual stimuli.Learning & Motivation,15, 106–117.
Reiss, S., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). CS habituation produces a “latent inhibition effect” but no active “conditioned inhibition.”Learning & Motivation,3, 237–245.
Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,75, 77–81.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shishimi, A. (1985). Latent inhibition experiments with goldfish (Carassius auratus).Journal of Comparative Psychology,99, 316–327.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant No. BNS 83-17051 from the National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abramson, C.I., Bitterman, M.E. The US-preexposure effect in honeybees. Animal Learning & Behavior 14, 374–379 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200081
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200081