Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

Living Edition
| Editors: Jennifer Vonk, Todd Shackelford


Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1236-1


In the associative learning literature, blocking is typically defined as a deficit in responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that has always been paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in the presence of another CS previously established as a reliable predictor of the same US.


Until the late 1960s, it was generally assumed that the mere temporal and spatial contiguity between a CS and a US was a necessary and sufficient condition for conditioning to take place. The discovery of blocking by Leon Kamin (1968) was the first of a series of findings that defied this view, stimulating the development of modern learning theories. His seminal experiments on blocking relied in the experimental design summarized in Table 1. As can be seen, in this experimental design, subjects in both groups experienced the same number of pairings between a light (L) and an electric shock. However, conditioned responding (CR) to the light was significantly stronger in the control...


Human Predictive Learning Associative Learning Theory Unconditioned Stimulus (US) Conditioned Stimulus (CS) Close Contiguity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., De Houwer, J., & Urushihara, K. (2006). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 965–985.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the prediction of behavior, 1967: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  5. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  9. Shanks, D. R. (2010). Learning: From association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 273–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Psicología BásicaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Cognition, Development and Educational PsychologyUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Section editors and affiliations

  • Oskar Pineno
    • 1
  1. 1.Hofstra UniversityLong IslandUSA