Abstract
In a series of four experiments with free-flying honeybees, individual foragers were trained with targets of two different colors that contained 5 or 20 μl of 50% sucrose solution. The two targets were singly presented in quasi-random sequences on each visit, with the amount of reward to be found on each target perfectly predictable from its color. The number of training visits (4–32) was varied both within and between experiments, and so also was the relative frequency of trials with the 5- and 20-μl targets (1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 9:1). At the conclusion of training under each condition, unrewarded responses to the targets were measured in a 10-min extinction test, with the targets presented either separately to two different groups of animals (Experiment 1) or as a pair (Experiments 2–4). When the number of training trials with each target was the same (Experiments 1 and 2), the animals responded more in extinction to the 20-μl target than to the 5-μl target, although there was a decline in the overall level of responding to both targets (an overlearning-extinction effect) as the number of training trials increased. After nine times as many, or only three times as many, training trials with the5- μl target as with the 20-μl target, the animals responded more in extinction to the 5-μl target (Experiment 3); after twice as many training trials with the 5-μl target as with the 20-μl target, there was equal responding to both (Experiment 4). The preferences shown in the choice tests of Experiments 2–4 could be simulated rather accurately on the assumptions of a model previously developed to deal with the discrete-trials choice behavior of honeybees and the further assumption that associative strength grows at a rate increasing with amount of reward to an asymptote independent of amount of reward.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amsel, A. (1958). The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous. reward situations.Psychological Bulletin,55, 102–119.
Bitterman, M. E. (1975). The comparative analysis of learning.Science,188, 699–709.
Bitterman, M. E. (1988). Vertebrate-invertebrate comparisons. In H. J. Jerison & I. L. Jerison (Eds.),Intelligence and evolutionary biology (pp 251–276). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bush, R. R., &Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical mode! for simple learning.Psychological Review,58, 313–323.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1980) Some phenomena of associative learning in honeybees.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,94, 878–885.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1982). Compound conditioning in honeybees.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,96, 192–199.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1984). The overlearningmextinction effect and successive negative contrast in honeybees (Apismellifera).Journal of Comparative Psychology,98, 100–109.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1985). Analysis of choice in honeybees.Animal Learning & Behavior,13, 246–252.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1986). Performance of honeybees in reversal and ambiguous-cue problems: Tests of a choice model.Animal Learning & Behavior,14, 225–231.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1987). Discrimination of color-odor compounds by honeybees: Tests of a continuity model.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 218–227.
Couvillon, P. A., &Bitterman, M. E. (1988). Compound-component and conditional discrimination of colors and odors by honeybees. Further tests of a continuity model.Animal Learning & Behavior,16, 67–74.
Daly, H. B., &Daly, J. T. (1982). A mathematical model of reward and aversive nonreward: Its application in over 30 appetitive learning situations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 441–480.
Flaherty, C. F. (1982). Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward.Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 409–440.
Hull, C. L. (1943).Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hull, C. L. (1952).A behavior system. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
Menzel, R. (1968). Das Gedächtnis der Honigbiene für Spscktralfarben: I. Kurzzeitiges und langzeitiges Behalten.Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie,60, 82–102.
Menzel, R., &Erber, J. (1972). The influence of the quantity of reward on the learning performance in honeybees.Behavior,41, 27–42.
Papini, M. R., Mustaca, A. E., &Bitterman, M. E. (1988). Successive negative contrast in the consummatory responding of didelphid marsupials.Animal Learning & Behavior,16, 53–57.
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.
Shinoda, A., &Birifrm, M. K. (1987) Analysis of the ovcrlearning extinction effect in honeybees.Animal Iearning & Behavior,15, 93–96.
Simpson, C. G. (1964) Organisms and molccules evolution.Science,146, 1535–1538.
Spence, K. W. (1956)Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Toiman, E. C. (1932)Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant BNS-8709785 from the National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buchanan, G.M., Bitterman, M.E. Learning in honeybees as a function of amount and frequency of reward. Animal Learning & Behavior 16, 247–255 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209074
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209074